Return to MIGIZI Home Page http://www.migizi.org/mig/default.html

REPORT ON AMERICAN INDIAN TELECOM CONFERENCE

JULY 17-19, 2006

Mille Lacs Band Of Ojibwe

Grand Casino Hinckley Resort And Hotel

Hinkley, MN

August 4, 2006

Author: Laura Waterman Wittstock

PRE-CONFERENCE CONSULTATION MEETING

July 17, 2006

Based on prior meetings and discussions the conference group met at various times during the afternoon and evening to confirm approaches for the Telecom Conference, discuss last minute registrants and cancellations, and the flow of the conference. Gordon Regguinti is the report author, and Randy Ross and Wittstock are the conference facilitators and resource people. Graham Hartley of MIGIZI is managing the sound and image requirements.

PRE-CONFERENCE MINNESOTA INDIAN AFFAIRS COUNCIL MEETING

July 18, 2006

Elaine Salinas and Wittstock attended the Indian Affairs Council meeting and presented a resolution to the governing body for adoption. The resolution adopted verbally supported a continuation of the Minnesota Tribal Telecommunications discussion and dialogue in a strategic direction. (Note: the Indian Affairs Council requests a written resolution from MIGIZI Communications for their records).

CONFERENCE DAY ONE

July 18, 2006

Randy Ross and Wittstock welcomed participants to the conference and pointed out the available resource materials in the packets and on the table. Spiritual Leader and Elder Lee Staples spoke and gave a blessing to the proceedings and luncheon meal. Chief Executive Melanie Benjamin welcomed all the Tribes and participants to the conference. President and CEO of The Minneapolis Foundation welcomed the participants and spoke briefly on the advantages of utilizing and controlling telecommunications in today’s political and market environments.

Following the luncheon, keynote speaker Joe Garcia addressed the conference. Mr. Garcia is President of the National Congress of American Indians. He is an electrical engineer and Governor of the Ohkay Owingeh Nation in New Mexico.

The following are selections from Mr. Garcia’s remarks. His PowerPoint is available elsewhere.

Garcia spoke of the intersection of technology and tribal development. The developmental planes of these two areas are not cross-secting very well at this time. He said it is human nature that tribes are not looking at technology very closely. There needs to be a stronger case made for how technology fits into the tribal area of interest and becomes a tribal priority. We now need a change of mentality by those who currently have a low level of awareness of the technology-related people who are working for tribes. We depend on people without knowing them well.

The Ohkay Owingeh built a radio tower and uses it as a basic asset to distribute services. The tribes also received a USDA grant that serves 120 persons of 400 families on the reservation. These examples show what can be done with more focus on technology areas and development of tribal businesses.

Garcia discussed comparative models of tribal government from the perspective of developing tribal businesses. In the traditional tribal government, the tribe generates is own funds. The tribe also depends on long term leadership for stability and to increase the chances of succeeding.

In the non-traditional model the tribes generates funds from its own resources and it gets contracts. The tribal/business relationship moves toward a separate but not entirely severed status. Economic development can then address a broad range of enterprise possibility. When replicated enough across Indian Country, the effect can be potent. “Power responds to strength,” said Garcia. There are currently 291 tribal gaming operations in the United States.

However, expansion of the economic base is also highly desirable among gaming tribes. At Ohkay Owingeh, economic development in addition to gaming includes agricultural, retail, housing and education enterprises. When the tribes started its own non-traditional governmental model, 95% of enterprise revenue came from gaming. It is now 77% and the goal is to make it at less than 50%.

In the new model environment, success depends on growing and efficiently managing the tribes diversified businesses. Diversification is an imperative that flows from economic but also political rationales.

Following Garcia’s keynote, the participants heard from a responder panel that included attorneys Shana Barehand, Margaret Schaff, and Geoffrey Blackwell.

Shana Barehand said spectrum issues and the coming auction affects every Indian person in some way. That is the depth of its importance. However at the tribal level, tribes are reacting to policies and they need to be a part of policy formation.

Geoffrey Blackwell said that over the last six years he has written language into the (FCC) regulations but not one word addressing the status, powers, or inclusion of tribes has been placed in the Telecommunications Act law in 1934 or 1996. He advised that tribes will have success if they work together. The mechanism to do this is in developing and winning the inclusion of Indian provisions in the reauthorization of the 1996 Act.

The changes over the last decade regarding POTS, (plain old telephone service) comes under the rubric of convergence. Now it is time to take a look at social priorities and public safety telecommunications related issues on tribal lands. We need to empower our tribal corporate decision makers. Telecommunications is as essential as roads and infrastructure (even in the more traditional definitions).

Blackwell concluded with a list of issues for tribes to watch and participate in. There are a number of issues around the Universal Service Fund in terms of what is covered, how much money is available, the difficulties in working with the bureaucracy, and time pressure to act. He said net neutrality is a huge issue for all of Indian Country because it affects what gets delivered and how.

The following excerpt from Wikipedia helps to explain the issue from a balanced point of view. There are mega interests on either side of this proposed Congressional change that will affect the American Internet.

The term Network neutrality was coined in 2005 by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu to mean a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).

It does however take on many different meanings.

Network neutrality has since been simplified into a set of restrictions on commercial interconnection agreements between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) carriers, on-line service providers, and broadband users. In this sense, network neutrality means a state in which ISPs, or "networks", provide interconnection services at a single service level "without discrimination" — a phrase itself that can cover different meanings, as we will see further.

Network neutrality is also a technical term, which applies particularly well to the basic Internet protocols. In accordance with the network engineering principle of layering, these network protocols were designed to provide distinct functions in the movement of information from one computer to another. A "neutral" network, in this sense, does not inspect the information payload that it moves, except for tags signifying a level of service. By contrast, a "non-neutral" network would determine a packet's service level from its content or otherwise fail to honor a requested service level.

Finally, network neutrality is also a contemporary controversy local to the United States regarding the role that government should take relative to network regulation. This controversy, which emerged following a couple of key regulatory evolutions in the United States, is extremely complex, as it mixes technical, economic, ideological and legal arguments. Moreover, intense lobbying by various parties to the controversy often introduces biased arguments into the debate. Generally speaking, in this debate, one can classify telecom operators and cable system operators as opponents of regulatory intervention that would reduce their profits, and Internet-based application providers (a.k.a. dot-com companies) as in favor of regulatory intervention to control their costs.

Blackwell said the National Congress of American Indian priorities are extremely important to all tribes. They focus on improving the rate and service levels; they recognize tribal authority; they create new credits and set-asides in the radio spectrum. It is an important historical moment in which tribes can mount a national momentum to support these priorities that will affect all tribes in the future.

Margaret Schaff said that energy and telecommunications policy development are very similar. The separation of tribal government and corporations starts with an understanding of the roles and how they work. Tribes need the structure of each of these areas to be well developed for future success. Tribes need to know how to manage the company (or companies) and safeguard the assets. There does need to be a legal separation. Tribal options in terms of telecommunications are quite diverse. There are a lot of different approached and the tribe does not always have to own the company.

Fundamentally, tribes can develop full regulation. They can require outside companies to subject themselves to tribal court. They can franchise outside companies to operate on Indian lands, taking a fee for the agreement to franchise. This however can be difficult if the outside company merely passes the fee along to customers within the tribe.

A round table discussion, “Tribal Telecom Strategic Conversation,” was led by Dick Trudell and Geoffrey Blackwell.

Dick Trudell introduced the panel and talked briefly about strengthening methodologies the tribes could employ to move forward with success. Historically, however, he said there have not been many successes in tribal efforts to strengthen their economic standing. There are many reasons for this including interference, lack of opportunity, misunderstandings of tribal sovereignty and lack of preparedness by tribes to seize opportunities. There is a tendency to look at need and gaps – the negative aspects – but that should be balanced by seeing the opportunities. That is the message that needs to spread throughout Indian Country.

Joe Garcia interjected that the NCAI strategy to work with United States Senate on the language of the Telecommunications Act reauthorization is of utmost importance. The tribes need to gain more support for the strategy. The urgency is making the policy changes effective (that’s the gap in Indian Country). He said there have been numerous studies on a number of subjects affecting Indians and no follow up. He said policy development is done “in bubbles” that take on an independent and isolated momentum and fail to make key connections with other factors or issues. They then burst and go away. This cannot be the approach now. Tribes have to be engaged while the urgency is there.

NCAI’s tribal provisions for the next Telecommunications Act are:

Amend Section 214(e) of the Telecommunications Act to include the following definition of unserved areas:

An unserved area is defined as service penetration 15% below the nationwide penetration rate for any communications service; or 5% below national rural penetration rates for any communications service, whichever rate is higher.

Amend Section 214(e)6 of the Telecommunications Act to include Tribes and Native Alaskans;

3. Acknowledge Tribal regulatory authority;

4.Provide mechanisms, with enforcement powers, for ensuring equitable, affordable and sustainable access to communications services, including broadband, broadcast and emerging technologies, in Indian Country. These mechanisms should also apply to any situation where discriminatory practices by Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) are identified;

5. Support tribal access and options for ownership and management of spectrum on Tribal lands for both wireless and broadcast applications;

6. Provide mechanisms to promote cooperation among Tribes, state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and remedies for resolving unforeseen conflicts; and,

7. Provide public financing to tribal communities that fall under the definition of an unserved area to close any service gap.

Blackwell said tribes should take a 30,000-foot high view of telecommunications needs and strategic directions. They need to authorize bigger budgets to address this area. There are opportunities to get into this policy debate and it needs a strong tribal presence in all political arenas. Look, for example, he said, at how public utility commissions operate. Tribes can step up to that level, or beyond in some cases.

Following the roundtable individual consultations were held with tribal participants; and, a short video with remarks by Geoffrey Blackwell on aspects of the coming spectrum auction was shown.

At dinner, Michael Peralta presented the Digital Village PowerPoint on how the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association developed an ability to build on an existing backbone and bring wireless services to a 19-reservation community.

CONFERENCE DAY TWO

July 19, 2006

Margaret Schaff made a presentation on ownership and regulation of Telecom on Tribal Lands.

Schaff discussed the Federal law background that covers the areas of telecommunications regulation. This included the Telecommunications Act of 1996. She also discussed relevant FCC provisions and other Federal regulations. With regard to Minnesota tribes, Schaff discussed Chapter 216A that establishes the Minnesota PUC.

A key part of Schaff’s presentation was to describe what tribes could do within their reservations and then she discussed the various categories of telecommunications categories which tribes could deploy and regulate. She said this is an evolving field and there is much to learn as policy development, case law and other activities lay a framework for future tribal telecommunications enterprises and regulation.

The day ended with a roundtable discussion on strategies and opportunities for building Tribal telecommunications capacity. Discussants included Michael Peralta of Tribal Digital Village, Greg Leidel of Great Lakes Intertribal Council, Loran Wappes of Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, Vikki Howard, the Education Director of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, and Anthony Tindall and Hominic Henderson of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Leidel described activities in his organization that have been encouraged by the Wisconsin Governor’s government to government relationship with the tribes. A group of tribal IT directors from around the state meets quarterly. He described Badger Net participation, a consortium of local carriers that buy in on a fixed cost basis. Tribes can participate and buy up to a gig. Installation is free. The network features business training via distance learning but there are many other possibilities. Badger Net LAN video conferencing is now fully available and IP to IP connection is available. 1.5 mg is $600 per month.

Howard said Leech Lake is looking to elevate the knowledge and skills of its workforce. The approach is called a “succession model.” The challenge is how to build the internal workforce within the tribe to meet technological challenges and thereby grow the tribe’s capacity. The tribe is currently working in partnership with IBM, doing Native family outreach. Some of this is data base development, which will assist in tracking family progress and avoiding duplication or overlap across groups. Other aspects include an ability to discuss curriculum with teachers and provide chat space so they can communicate across the reservation’s distances. She said the costs involved in continually upgrading the system have to be addressed. Different budgeting processes have to be adopted. The are 9,000 (total) enrolled members of the Leech Lake Ojibwe and there are 5,000 non members on the reservation.

Wappes spoke briefly about an educational network in the state of Minnesota.

Peralta added to his previous presentation and said maybe another tribal group might go from wireless to fiber. It depends on the geography and every situation is different – there is no formula. His tribal group needed to do some studies to find out more about customer demand. When the tribal corporation is the provider, customer service is still a quality measure that needs a lot of attention. Even Digital Village is not sustainable without more support mechanisms. That is all part of understanding what a tribe might choose to go into and learning to stay the course.

Tindall and Henderson spoke briefly about the history of USDA, its services, particularly the areas of distance learning and telemedicine. They described the loans and grants available. They went on to discuss the broadband program loan and grant and the Community Connects program.

At the conclusion of the roundtable Wittstock and Ross summarized the conference and listed next steps as the dialogue on Minnesota Tribal Telecommunications goes on.

Ross said the meeting report would be coming out in a few weeks and would be sent out for comment and review. We will also plan a conference call with the planning group to discuss the assessments from the 11 reservations and how to proceed with the next phase.

Wittstock said it starts with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council resolution which was approved. We will then have to develop the process for the strategic direction. We will also have to continue to engage the tribal IT group and expand the scope and number of participants. We should keep in touch via e-mail.

Wittstock and Ross said all the slides will be available via e-mail or on the MIGIZI website within the next few weeks.

Thanks were extended all around and the conference was concluded.

Return to MIGIZI Home Page http://www.migizi.org/mig/default.html