Native Wireless Broadband: Communications and Communities
While many tribal consumers have a vast array of opportunities to access the seemingly unlimited information on the Internet, many Indian consumers still do not have access to traditional telephone lines for dial-up Internet connection. The gap in access results from the remote location of Indian reservations, and the high cost of running line to homes and businesses there. Broadband services and applications present a solution that could bridge this connectivity gap in Indian Country.
A Wall Street study recently cited by the FCC in a report on wireless broadband access found that consumers increasingly rely upon wireless devices and applications to access the Internet to complete commercial transactions and gaming activities. Tribal governments and entrepreneurs and Indian Country’s other capital investors should focus on developing wireless broadband access on reservations in order to reach tribal consumers and further inject commerce into tribal markets. Indian Country most certainly has the land base, population and energy resources needed to positively impact the Internet network and become a member of the Internet Protocol for transmission of data via the Internet.
One area that should be developed in Indian Country are mesh and edge networks, otherwise known as server farms, which store content for access by end users. The stored content and deployment of high speed fiber optic links connecting various servers to a central database will prevent congestion at choke points in the Internet. This allows the end user to access content and information at faster and more reliable speeds. Server farm projects could be developed using a mixture of tribal, private and federal Recovery Act funding. Tribal entities that become Internet service providers (or “ISPs”) should also explore setting fees for use of the Internet network based upon tiered access. Tiered access would allow a flat fee for a certain level of Internet traffic per month, but impose additional fees for access to extra bandwidth needed to transmit higher volumes of data over the Internet.
The network neutrality debate happening before the FCC is also key for Indian Country. The FCC regulates ISPs as informational service providers, not common carriers. As the FCC has ancillary authority to regulate ISPs, market forces impose conditions, rates and terms upon ISPs’ delivery of Internet access to end users. While an open market should encourage tribal development of ISPs, there are open questions regarding the extent, nature and scope of state regulatory authority of ISPs operating within Indian Country. The federal Communications Act reinforces the view that states have an important and preeminent role in regulating intrastate communications. I fear that if the FCC decides that ISPs are common carriers, rather than informational service providers, such may inadvertently cause state regulation over Tribal ISP transactions occurring on tribal lands within a particular state. Tribal advocates must focus on the net neutrality debate insofar as state, and thus tribal, regulatory authority over Internet communications are concerned.
In sum, Indian Country and potential tribal ISPs can and should seek to influence federal policy by or through advocating for tax incentives to develop broadband capabilities in underserved reservation areas; establishing partnerships with current ISPs to take advantage of Internet-related business opportunities; and pronouncing a clear position on net neutrality and related regulatory issues to the FCC and other policymakers.
