FCC broadband data challenges particularly complicated for Tribal nations

Lodging a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s national broadband map means submitting a great deal of data. And while the FCC won’t force anyone to submit challenges, stakeholders – from state governments on down to individual citizens – know the twin challenge processes are the best mechanisms to ensure each state get its fair share of Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment funding. 

This process is more complicated for Tribal governments, which are independent nations with corresponding rights to data sovereignty. Providing granular challenge data to the FCC, data the agency would legally own, raises concerns for some Tribal leaders. 

Many Tribal lands lack reliable, affordable service, and BEAD funds could be a game changer. Also, since the FCC’s data is reportedly quite inaccurate on Tribal lands, Tribal challenges are likely to be highly impactful on BEAD allocations.

This slide deck from the American Indian Health Commission provides a helpful brush-up on the principles of Tribal data sovereignty.

The deck outlines four key principles:

• “Only a Tribe has the sovereign authority to determine how their data may or may not be used.”
• “When a jurisdiction reports on or about American Indian or Alaska native peoples, it should meaningfully partner and consult with Tribal leaders on the analysis and interpretation of the data.”
• “Tribes retain an ownership interest in data, even when the Tribe’s data are located in a state, federal or other dataset. This interest remains when the Tribe’s data are aggregated with other data.”
• “Tribes must have equitable access to data needed to perform their governmental duties.”

The deck also notes a few barriers:

• “Exclusion of Tribal nations from decision‐ making/input on federal and state government use of tribal and AI/AN data.”
• “Lack of federal and state data sharing agreements that protect Tribal and AI/AN data and recognize Tribal ownership in data about their Tribe and their people.”
• “Lack of federal and state government mechanisms to provide Tribal nations equitable access to AI/AN data necessary for Tribes to perform their governmental duties.”

The deck lists known violations of Tribal data sovereignty as well. A couple examples:

• A state shares Tribal data with national media without permission.
• A state shares Tribal vaccine allocations without permission.

Tribal governments, which, again, are sovereign nations, must be dealt with as such by Washington. The FCC seems to have neglected data sovereignty when planning its mapping process, but certainly should reevaluate its policies to mitigate harms going forward.

See also these principles of Tribal Data Sovereignty.