Policy Solution

Funding Opportunity: Rural Business Development Grant

tlmorri3 — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 18:28:56 +0000

Funding Opportunity: Rural Business Development Grant

tlmorri3 January 22, 2025

AIPI Blog

Funding Opportunity: Rural Business Development Grant

On January 6, 2025, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, a USDA agency, issued a notice inviting applications for grants to provide technical assistance for passenger Rural Transportation (RT) systems under the Rural Business Development Grant (RDBG) program. Grant funds will support RT systems, including designated funds for RT systems operating within Tribal lands of Federally Recognized tribes. The Program aims to improve the economic conditions of rural areas by providing technical assistance that will enhance the operation of rural transportation systems.

Estimated Funding for FY25: $750,000

Award Amounts: The Agency will award a maximum of $500,000 for RT systems and $250,000 for FRNAT RT projects.

Anticipated Award Date: Prior to September 30, 2025

Performance Period: October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026

The agency will select successful funding applications and subsequently award them to the extent that funding may ultimately be made available through appropriations. All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.

Due Date/Time: No later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on April 7, 2025

Completed applications may be submitted in paper or electronic format to the USDA RD State Office contact.

Supplementary Information: This can be found here.

For Further Information:

Contact Cindy Mason, Business Loan and Grant Analyst, Program Management Division

cindy.mason@usda.gov

RBCS, USDA

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Mail Stop 3226

Room 5160-South

Washington, DC 20250-3226

(202) 720-1400

Posted on

January 22, 2025

Resource type

Policy Solution

Browse topics

Blog Home

Policy Alert: Potential Impacts of a Federal Government Shutdown on Tribal Telecommunications

tlmorri3 — Fri, 29 Sep 2023 23:06:39 +0000

Policy Alert: Potential Impacts of a Federal Government Shutdown on Tribal Telecommunications

tlmorri3 September 29, 2023

AIPI Blog

Policy Alert: Potential Impacts of a Federal Government Shutdown on Tribal Telecommunications

At this time, the United States government will likely shut down due to Congress not coming together to pass needed legislation through a continuing resolution or the required appropriations bills. Given this situation, each federal agency has created agency contingency plans. As Tribal Government relationships with the Federal Government are intertwined, there will be many impacts on Tribal communities. One area of impact is communications and telecommunications. The shutdown will affect all agencies and programs in some capacity. This alert addresses programs administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). However, the Federal Government maintains a website–Internet for All– consolidating all investments in the Internet, and many, if not all, of these programs will likely be wound down or somehow impacted during a government shutdown.

According to agency plans, programs from prior year appropriations or deemed core emergency programs will continue, but the extent of the continuation is unclear. For example, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) functions will continue to be funded, but it is unclear if new applications and customer support for signups will be supported. It is anticipated that staffing, technical assistance, and the like will not be supported even if the program is.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The FCC administers several important programs that impact broadband infrastructure development in Indian Country, such as the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and the E-Rate program. The FCC’s shutdown plan states that broadband affordability programs like the ACP program will continue during a lapse but does not specifically mention the E-rate program. The FCC’s plan outlines the following agency activities that will continue during a lapse:

Activities necessary for the protection of life or property.
Permissible Spectrum Auction activities that are funded through a source other than lapsed annual appropriations and not affected by the partial lapse in the FCC’s spectrum auctions authority.
Broadband data and mapping activities funded through a source other than lapsed annual appropriations.
Emergency relief programs, including the ACP, Emergency Connectivity Fund, and Telehealth Programs, are funded through a source other than lapsed annual appropriations.

FCC activities that will not continue during a lapse include but are not limited to:

Response to consumer complaints and inquiry phone lines.
Consumer protection and local competition enforcement.
Licensing services, including broadcast, wireless, and wireline.
Management of radio spectrum and the creation of new opportunities for competitive services for the American public.
Equipment authorization.
All other activities not immediately necessary for the protection of life or property or otherwise excepted or funded through a source other than lapsed annual appropriations.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

NTIA programs such as the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) and the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD) are key programs for Indian Country. NTIA’s shutdown plan indicates that programs such as the BEAD program, the Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program, the Digital Equity Act programs, and the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Grant program will continue through a lapse. These programs will continue to the extent that they are funded through other sources. NTIA’s plan also states that the following activities will continue through a lapse:

Management of federal spectrum;
support policy and international treaty development in the areas of the Internet economy, including online privacy, copyright protection, cybersecurity, and the global free flow of information online;
promote the stability and security of the Internet’s domain name system.

NTIA activities funded by other sources that will continue through a lapse include:

Telecommunications research and engineering

Continuing to build and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network, as well as support state and local governments to plan for their participation in the network
Implement certain grant programs
Strengthen and seek greater efficiencies with federal spectrum use.

Posted on

September 29, 2023

Resource type

Policy Solution

Browse topics

Blog Home

Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:09:17 +0000

Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:09

Solutions

Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act

Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act
S. 1948 and H.R. 4214 (identical)

To promote the academic achievement of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children with the establishment of a Native American language grant program.

Introduced: January 16, 2014
Reported: August 26, 2014 by Mr. Tester with amendment
Reported by Senate Indian Affairs Committee: July 30, 2014

Introduced by Mr. Tester (D-MT) and Co-Sponsored by Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in the Senate and Co-Chairs Tom Cole (R-OK) and Betty McCollum (D-MN) in the House (Mr. Schatz, Mr. Begich, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Heinrich); read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

The Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education Act (ESEA Title VII) was created to determine the educational pathway of tribal nations. Since its inception, federal Native education policy has become outdated and although provides formula grants, discretionary programs and other activities, the current legislation has eliminated culture-based teaching models and diminishes tribal self –determination. By passing the Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act, Congress has the opportunity to strengthen and protect Native education and language.

CALL TO ACTION:

• Review the bill’s with your community and/or leadership.
• Contact your delegate and voice the importance of supporting this legislation for Indian Country.
• Review National Indian Education Association (NIEA) Advocacy Action Guide.
• Contact delegates, your representatives and offer support to pass legislation.
Goals of S. 1948 and H.R. 4214:
• Create a grant program to support Native language usage as the primary method for instruction in curricula at schools and to improve overall student outcomes.
• With authority from the Secretary of Education, award grants to eligible, schools (public and private), tribal or nonprofit organizations for development/expansion/improvement of programs using Native languages as the primary language of instruction from grades prekindergarten to post-secondary programs and schools.
• Include federal policy for Native immersion schools as established in the Native American Languages Act (Public Law 101-477).

Supporting Entities:

• National Indian Education Association (NIEA), National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, Alaska Federation of Natives, Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, United Tribes of North Dakota, and the National Alliance to Save Native Languages called for a grant program to support Native language immersion schools.
• Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Eight Northern Pueblos, Inc., Navajo Nation and ‘Aha Pūnana Leo Immersion non-profit organization, tribes and organizations have endorsed S. 1948.

Resources:

• NIEA Advocacy Guide
• S. 1948 and H.R. 4214 (identical)
• NIEA Testimony
• NIEA Modernize S. 1948 and H.R. 4214
• GovTrack.us – Tracking the United States Congress, track bills, committee meetings, get alerts

Native Language Immersion Student Achievement Act

Posted on

October 15, 2014

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions

Impending FCC ruling on: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:09:17 +0000

Impending FCC ruling on: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:09

Solutions

Impending FCC ruling on: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

Impending FCC ruling on: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet
GN Docket No. 14-28
FCC 14-61

Adopted: May 15, 2014 Released May, 15, 2014
Comment Date: July 15, 2014
Reply Comment Date: September 10, 2014

By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Clyburn issuing separate statements; Commissioner Rosenworcel concurring and issuing a statement. Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly dissenting and issuing separate statements.

Background Summary:

The long-standing battle over regulating the Internet may culminate in February as Chairman Tom Wheeler is likely to circulate an Open Internet Order on February 5th, with voting to take place on February 26th, 2015. The main issue in the net-neutrality debate is “whether the FCC will shift the authority through which it regulates Internet service providers from Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act (PL 104-104) to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. The concept of Open Internet is often referred to as Net Neutrality and refers to the principle that consumers should have the ability to make their own choices about what applications and services they want to use. It is maintained that Open Internet spurs innovation and investment. However, some businesses would like to charge a fee to users for faster access in effect creating a tiered system of paid prioritization for access. In a confusing way, by regulating the Internet the FCC would ensure that it stays open or neutral.

The White House has weighed in on the subject supporting the principle of Net Neutrality. It should be noted that the National Congress of American Indians, the national representative body of more than 300 Tribal Nations, has passed a resolution supporting the preservation of Open Internet via regulation.

In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission released the Open Internet Order developing high-level mandates to require transparency (requiring broadband Internet providers to disclose network management practices, performance and terms and conditions of their services) and prohibit blocking, deterring discrimination to protect and support an Open Internet. Verizon challenged this order in Verizon v. FCC and Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, et. al., Intervenors. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “affirmed the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband Internet access service and the Open Internet” which they argued would encourage broadband investment and deployment (and not inhibit it). “The court upheld the transparency rule, but vacated (cancelled) the no-blocking and no-unreasonable discrimination rules. The court invited the FCC to act to preserve a free and open Internet.”
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

On May 15, 2014, the FCC released the Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet (GN Docket No. 14-28) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Since the docket opened, the FCC has received over 4 million comments in response to the NPRM, making it the largest docket in the history of the FCC. Since its release the docket accelerated discussion about Net Neutrality. A term coined by Columbia Law School Professor, Tim Wu, describes the principle that the Internet should be an open access network that is non-discriminatory and gives the “users the right to use non-harmful network attachments or applications, and give innovators the corresponding freedom to supply them.” Furthermore, proponents of the Net Neutrality debate want to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or slowing websites or creating different speed lanes for service (i.e. fast lanes) via paid priority mechanisms.

Simply put, an Open Internet Order could regulate that Internet service providers treat all content equally, giving users open access for all applications and devices and no content provider would be given preferential treatment (i.e. faster lane), as well as no content could be purposely blocked or charged different rates. Supporters of net neutrality suggest that with usage-based pricing, the digital divide, particularly as it exists in lower socioeconomic areas and on Tribal lands could potentially increase the current divide. Opponents to net neutrality policy and regulation contend that regulation will deter users the potential benefits of more options and increased speeds/traffic, while simultaneously stalling innovation, and competition amongst Internet service providers.

Goals of NPRM- Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet:

• Develop a legally enforceable framework.
• Secure the Internet as an “engine for innovation and the economic and social benefits to follow.”
• Enhance the transparency rule upheld in the 2010 Order (ensuring consumers are provided full disclosure of services).
• Adopt no-blocking rules so all may enjoy “robust, fast and dynamic Internet access.”
• Prohibit paid prioritization.
• Propose a multi-faceted dispute resolution process.
• Ensure choices for consumers and innovators.
• Seek how” either section 706 or Title II (or other sources of legal authority such as Title III for mobile services) could be applied.”

Considerations for Tribal Nations and communities:

• As the Internet becomes a utility, what does this mean for individual Tribal members or Tribal Nations What does it mean for Tribes without a land-base or Tribes in Tribal Statistical Areas? There are many considerations with regard to Tribal populations and Nations.
• With regard to Tribal telecommunications operators and/or Internet service providers, what challenges and opportunities might be expected if the Internet is regulated?
• Broadband penetration and deployment is significantly less than that of the general American population making Indian Country one of the most vulnerable populations in the digital age. How might Open Internet support or discourage efforts to bring Indian Country to parity in digital connectivity and access?
• How might the possibility of “fast lanes,” “slow lanes,” and “blocking” in limit Tribal populations to unequal access to the Internet?
• Could usage-based or “metered or capped” broadband services potentially could increase a larger digital divide in Indian Country where access, connectivity, innovation and content is already limited or doesn’t exist?
• Indian Country utilizes mobile and mobile broadband services in high rates that warrant transparency. Can the proposed rules further protect vulnerable populations who utilize mobile services, especially in areas where connectivity is lacking or non-existent and if so, how?
• As Indian Country continues to wrestle with creating more effective and efficient Tribal economies, how is Open Internet critical to allowing for innovation and economic opportunity to spark in many of the most rural crevices in Indian Country? Whether it is through business development, economic or social development or supporting efforts in education and health, an Open Internet is a part of a larger discussion on connectivity and access to exercising self-determination—what does Open Internet mean for your community?
• As technology progresses, it has become exceedingly important to consider how issues of broadband, telecommunications, connectivity, become critical to preserving and expanding language and culture and exercising sovereignty and self-determination.

CALL TO ACTION! PROVIDE COMMENTS HERE:

Please consider the current state of you and/or your Tribe, Nation or community’s needs and access to the Internet, broadband and telecommunications services, or lack thereof and provide comment before January 29th, 2015. Engaging in these discussions and contributing comments ensures your voice from Indian Country to be included in part of the record.

• Review the NPRM Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet (GN Docket No. 14-28) with your community and/or leadership
• Provide comments to the FCC through the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

Comments sought:

Provide your own comments or provide comments in response to the areas below:

• Re-adoption of the 2010 no-blocking rule and allow individualized bargaining above a minimum level of access to broadband provider’s subscribers and be consistent with commercial reasonableness. What effects might occur on broadband network infrastructure and technologies. How to define minimum level and commercial reasonableness.
• How would treating mobile broadband differently from fixed broadband affect consumers in different demographic groups and those who rely solely on mobile services?
• Adoption of a case-by-case approach in analyzing commercially reasonable legal standard.
• Should the Commission impose flat bans on pay-for-priority practices or some of them?
• Should the Commission be able to identify specific services that would be treated separately from the application of the commercially reasonable legal standard? (i.e. potential safe harbors)
• Under Title II, should the Commission revisit the classification of broadband Internet access service as an information service or separately identify and classify it as a telecommunications service, a service that “broadband providers furnish to edge providers.”
• Other legal limitations and barriers to adoption of the rules, including the First Amendment and Due Process considerations.

Other perspectives to consider:

In Support of Net Neutrality (Open Internet)

• National Congress of American Indian
• Color of Change
• National Hispanic Media Coalition
• Native Public Media
• National Organization for Women

Against Net Neutrality (Open Internet)

• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
• National Urban League
• Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
• League of United Latin American Citizens
• Minority Media and Telecommunications Council

Resources:

• Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet (GN Docket No. 14-28) (FCC 14-61).
• National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Resolution #RAP-10-007. Call for Support of Non-Discrimination and to Preserve Open Internet or Network Neutrality.
• Net Neutrality: President Obama’s Plan for a Free and Open Internet.
• Open Internet Order (GN Docket No. 09-191) (FCC 10-201).
• American Civil Liberties Union: What Is Net Neutrality?
• McMillian, Robert. “What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality.” Wired. Enterprise. June 23, 2014.
• Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Net Neutrality: Net Neutrality is a Civil Rights Issue
• FCC Consumer Guide on Promoting Open Internet
• Wihbey, John. "The Net Neutrality Debate and Underlying Dynamics: Research Perspectives." Journalist's Resource: Research on Today's News Topics. November 10, 2014.

Full brief

Posted on

January 20, 2015

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions

WC Docket No. 13-184 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) E-Rate Modernization Proposal

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:09:16 +0000

WC Docket No. 13-184 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) E-Rate Modernization Proposal

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:09

Solutions

WC Docket No. 13-184 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) E-Rate Modernization Proposal

WC Docket No. 13-184
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) E-Rate Modernization Proposal
7th Report and Order Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries

Adopted: July 11, 2014          Released: July 23, 2014

FILE COMMENTS HERE
Comment Date: September 15, 2014
Reply Comment Date: September 30, 2014

By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Clyburn issuing separate statements; Commissioner Rosenworcel approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement;
Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly dissenting and issuing separate statements.

The E-rate program (formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism) is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The intent of this program is to assist schools and libraries to obtain affordable telecommunications services, broadband Internet and internal network connections. Eligible schools, school districts and libraries can apply individually or as a part of a consortia. Discounts to support five categories of service, 1) telecommunications, 2) telecommunications services, 3) Internet access, 4) internal connections and 5) basic maintenance of internal communications, can be obtained based on eligibility level of poverty and location (i.e. urban or rural).

Since E-rate’s inception 17 years ago, the proposed Order has been touted as “landmark” and a “significant step” towards modernizing the E-rate program. For Indian Country the digital divide remains, however with small, short term gains in the proposed Order there prevents continued opportunity to address connectivity challenges for tribal schools and libraries nationwide. As critical connectivity issues remain in most of Indian Country it is paramount to exercise tribal digital sovereignty by expressing comments to this order of the reality of dramatic connectivity gaps in Indian Country.
CALL TO ACTION! PROVIDE COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THESE AREAS
• Data regarding gap in schools and libraries, current connectivity, and connectivity targets and analyses of overall conclusions extracted from the data.
• How much funding is needed to bridge gaps, especially in regards to both WAN and Internet, given industry trends and broadband pricing over time.
• Per-student and per-square foot budgets for Wi-Fi and other internal connections for 2015 and 2016 funding; is the $1 billion funding target sufficient?
• Focus of the program on broadband and meeting long term connectivity needs.
• Consortium participation; Accommodation of schools and libraries on Tribal lands and establishment of different consortia rules for Tribal schools and libraries or operated by Tribal Nations.
• Education Coalition proposed model offering 5% discount rate for consortia meeting minimum standards. How this proposal would affect schools and libraries on Tribal lands or operated by Tribal Nations?
• Requirement to use state-reported NSLP data and will it impact Tribal schools and libraries, if so, how? Is there a reporting data process that should be used for other sets of schools?
Chairman Wheeler’s proposed Order is an effort to address the Wi-Fi gap, attempts to ensure that E-Rate money is spent prudently and seeks to improve the overall administration of the program.
“Wins” for Tribal lands
• Recognition of need for “more extensive government-to-government consultation with Tribal Nations”; need for Tribal specific data and connectivity.
• Delegation of authority to the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) in coordination with the Bureau and the Office of Managing Director (OMD to conduct government-to-government consultation.
• ONAP, in coordination with USAC will develop tribal specific E-rate training.
• Creation of a formal Tribal liaison at Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to assist with Tribal-specific outreach, training and assistance.

Wi-Fi Gap
• $1 billion committed for 2015 for category two services; $1 billion in 2016 and $1 billion targeted thereafter (not fixed allocation).
• Multi-year funding. Applicants who receive 2015 0r 2016 funds will establish a five-year budget cycle for category two services
• Multi-year transition to broadband funding and phase down of non-broadband services beginning in 2015 with 20% phase down (i.e. 90% discount will now be 70% discount). Only data plans and air cards will be considered if applicant can demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
• Potential flexibility to determine schools/libraries needs with clear broadband goals
• Pre-discount budget of $2.30 per square foot for libraries with a pre-discount funding floor of $9,200 in category two support over five years for those libraries that apply for E-rate funding in 2015-2016.
E-Rate funds
• Increase in minimum applicant contribution rate for category two services. Increased from 10% to 15%. Effective for funding year 2015.
• Encouraged creation of consortiums to support cost-effectiveness measures.
• Increase awareness of how E-rate funds are spent and prices charged for services.
Program Administration
• Change in names, priority one is now “category one” and priority two is now “category two”.
• Expedited process for multi-year applications, and small dollar amounts.
• Expedited review of applications.
• Electronic filing required, however accommodations can be made for paper filing if applicant can demonstrate need to do so.
• Highest discount for category two services set for 85%.
• Schools and libraries will use state reported NSLP (National School Lunch Program) data of a district’s NSLP participation rate to determine E-rate discount; mandatory use of NSLP data for schools participation in NSLP.
• Adoption of USDA’s CEP (Community Eligibility Provision) Provision 1, 2 and 3 information from schools and districts.
• Elimination of technology plans beginning in 2015 for category two services.
• Census definition of “rural” and “urban” adopted for this Order.
• E-rate applicants and service providers must permit auditors, investigators, attorneys, or any other person appointed by a state education department, USAC, the Commission or any local, state, federal agency with jurisdiction over the entity to enter their premises to conduct E-rate compliance inspections.

Full brief

Posted on

June 4, 2015

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions

Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:09:16 +0000

Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:09

Solutions

Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry

Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry
GN Docket No. 14-126

Inquiry concerning the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and possible steps to accelerate such deployment pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act.

Adopted: August 1, 2014       Released: August 5, 2014

FILE COMMENTS HERE:
Comment Date: September 4, 2014
Reply Comment Date: September 19, 2014

By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler issuing a statement; and Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly approving in part, concurring part and issuing separate statements.

The FCC has launched a Notice of Inquiry about Broadband Progress and seeks comments about “whether advance telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in reasonable and timely fashion”. Comments on several aspects of Broadband include deployment, quality, speed, adoption, accuracy of mapping of underserved areas, as well as affordability.

The Commission recognizes: The lack of broadband access for “certain groups of Americans indicating that nearly one quarter of Americans living in rural areas lack access to 4 Mbps/1Mbps broadband, and 29 percent of Americans living on all Tribal lands are without such access.” Additionally, Americans living on Tribal lands in rural areas without access to fixed broadband rises to 49.5 percent.”

CALL TO ACTION! PROVIDE COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THESE AREAS:

• Definition of “advanced technology capability”, especially in regards to core characteristics of speed, latency and usage allowance.
• Whether there should be separate benchmarks for fixed and mobile services.
• Which data should be used to measure broadband?
• How should differences in broadband deployment, especially in non-urban and Tribal areas?
• Should a modification of 4 megabits per second (mbps) download and 1 mbps upload continue to be a speed benchmark?
• How to address mobile and satellite services data and improve evaluation of these services.
• How deployment should be determined and evaluated as well as how to improve analysis of broadband availability at elementary and secondary schools.
• Are there additional data that should be considered when determining the extent of mobile broadband deployment, benchmarking and availability in a service area, as well as adoption rates (i.e. number of handsets per household, multiple handset usage and average number of households across geographic areas, such as tribal lands).
• The Commission seeks comments on how have their actions and other government actions help or hinder deployment of fixed or mobile networks in underserved areas. Have right-of-ways promoted deployment?
• “What government programs and/or private investment are helping with the unique challenges in deploying broadband to rural areas and Tribal lands? How can the Commission better assess deployment investment and impact for underserved areas?”
• Costs and delays in building out networks, broadband service quality, lack of affordable broadband Internet access services, lack of trust in broadband and Internet content and services, including privacy protections and lack of access to devices and other broadband-capable equipment. What is the impact or experience in these areas for Tribal lands and unique challenges faced in these communities.
• How can the Commission better accelerate broadband deployment on Tribal lands? What concrete steps should be taken to assess and improve the state of broadband on Tribal lands?

Full inquiry

Posted on

September 4, 2015

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions

GAO Report on High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Land

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:09:15 +0000

GAO Report on High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Land

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:09

Solutions

GAO Report on High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Land

High-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical component of the nation’s infrastructure and an economic driver, particularly to remote tribal communities. However, in 2015, FCC reported that the lack of service in tribal areas presents impediments. GAO was asked to review the status of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. The report examines (1) perspectives of tribes and providers on high-speed Internet access and barriers to increasing this access; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination between federal programs that promote high- speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) existing data and performance measures related to high-speed Internet on tribal lands. GAO visited or interviewed officials from a non- generalizable sample of 21 tribal entities and 6 service providers selected to provide diversity in size, location, and poverty levels. GAO also reviewed FCC and USDA fiscal year 2010 through 2014 program data, funding, and materials and interviewed federal officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FCC (1) develop joint training and outreach with USDA; (2) develop performance goals and measures for tribal areas for improving broadband availability to households; (3) develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to tribal schools and libraries; and (4) improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining “tribal” on the program application. FCC agreed with the recommendations.

Full report

Posted on

February 3, 2016

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions

AIPI Policy Review: Barriers and Challenges for Tribal Access to Broadband Internet

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:09:15 +0000

AIPI Policy Review: Barriers and Challenges for Tribal Access to Broadband Internet

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:09

Solutions

AIPI Policy Review: Barriers and Challenges for Tribal Access to Broadband Internet

According to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, an estimated 35 percent of residents of Tribal landsi lacked access to broadband speeds at 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps)ii, which is the U.S. standard. Comparatively, the majority of the U.S. population has access to high-speed broadband at or above the standard with just 8 percent without a broadband connectioniii. Since the early 2000’s, Tribes have lagged behind the rest of the U.S. in access to telecommunications services, both telephone and internet; this is exemplative of the digital divide on Tribal lands.

Full review

Posted on

January 15, 2019

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions

AIPI Policy Article: Indigenous Legislators in Congress and Arizona

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:09:14 +0000

AIPI Policy Article: Indigenous Legislators in Congress and Arizona

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:09

Solutions

AIPI Policy Article: Indigenous Legislators in Congress and Arizona

The November 6, 2018 election was historically significant for Indigenous candidates and voters. More than 100 candidates of Native American descent ran for public office before the primaries and more than half of them were women. Below, AIPI profiles the indigenous lawmakers in Congress and the Arizona State legislature.

Full article

Posted on

February 12, 2019

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions

AIPI Policy Brief: The Music Modernization Act and its Impact on Tribal Interests

ajherre9 — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:03:08 +0000

AIPI Policy Brief: The Music Modernization Act and its Impact on Tribal Interests

ajherre9 Tue, 06/20/2023 - 10:03

Solutions

AIPI Policy Brief: The Music Modernization Act and its Impact on Tribal Interests

The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA) became Public Law 115-264 on October 11, 2018. Title II of the MMA carries important Tribal implications for recordings pre-dating 1972, which could potentially increase public access to sound recordings for noncommercial purposes. This raises serious concerns regarding public access and use of collections of sound recordings made of Tribal ceremonies, songs, oral histories, and languages.

Full brief

Posted on

February 20, 2019

Resource type

Policy Solution

Back to solutions