Commenters Agree on Importance of Working With Tribes on 5G Fund
Addressing tribal issues is important, but it shouldn’t slow the rollout of the $9 billion 5G Fund that FCC commissioners approved in August, the Competitive Carriers Association said in comments posted Friday in docket 20-32. Commissioner Brendan Carr dissented on the 5G Fund item, which included a Further NPRM on tribal issues (see 2408290022). Tribes and their associations commented on the importance of cooperation with tribal governments (see 2410170045).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“In determining the contours of Tribal engagement requirements for the 5G Fund, the Commission should adopt rules that allow for thoughtful discussions among wireless providers and Tribal governments but do not cause undue delay or unnecessary burdens,” CCA said. The FCC’s tribal land bidding credit (TLBC) framework “should suffice to ensure thorough engagement and would be administratively efficient for purposes of the 5G Fund.”
“The history of unilateral federal decision-making," said the Oglala Sioux Tribe, "has often resulted in economic, cultural, and environmental harm to Tribal communities, including our own.” Based in South Dakota and Nebraska, the Oglala Sioux Tribe added, “The deployment of 5G infrastructure, and broadband infrastructure generally, involves significant decisions about land use, environmental impacts, and cultural preservation.” Absent tribal consent, “these projects would continue the legacy of external decision-making that disregards Tribal sovereignty and Tribal self-determination.”
The Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NNTRC) supported a mandate that 5G Fund bidders “engage with tribes and certify that they have received all necessary permissions to deploy on tribal lands.” NNTRC underscored the importance of funding projects on tribal lands. “The FCC has long recognized that native nations are on the wrong side of the digital divide, both because of the remoteness of many Tribal reservations, and [because] deploying broadband in Indian Country is much more expensive than in other areas because of the many layers of federal and tribal governmental approvals to operate on Tribal lands,” NNTRC said.
“The history of Tribal sovereignty recognition," the National Tribal Telecommunications Association (NTTA) said, "demands that Tribal consent not only be an integral part of the 5G Fund … award process, but also for all universal service programs, grant awards, and in other areas of the broadband communications landscape.” Tribal consent “at a minimum, must be explicit, affirmative and in writing,” NTTA said.
Smith Bagley, a carrier serving tribal areas, said the FCC should require cooperation with tribal governments, especially for providers with “little or no experience constructing mobile voice and broadband networks on Tribal lands.” The commission should also “take into account the burdens faced by smaller providers and those serving multiple Tribal lands.” Smith Bagley also suggested modeling requirements for engagement on those in place for obtaining a TLBC “in large part because of the efficiencies to be gained by using a structure already present in the Commission’s rules.”
The New Mexico Office of Broadband Access and Expansion noted it requires “that applicants for state broadband funding demonstrate they have consent of any impacted tribe, nation, or pueblo during the application process.” The agency supported “bringing federal rules into alignment with those found under state law.”