Apartment landlords can force tenants to use specific ISPs under new FCC action

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 380   +10
Staff
WTF?! FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has withdrawn a proposal to ban mandatory bulk billing arrangements for internet services in apartment buildings. This decision is a departure from the previous administration's efforts to increase competition and consumer choice in the broadband market.

The proposal, originally put forward by former FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in March 2024, sought to prohibit arrangements that required tenants to pay for specific internet services, even if they preferred alternative providers. Rosenworcel argued that such practices often lead to higher prices and limit choices for residents in apartments, condos, and public housing.

Rosenworcel's proposal was not a complete ban on bulk-billing. Rather, it aimed to give tenants the option to opt out of such arrangements, potentially opening the door for more competition.

Despite the FCC holding a 3-2 Democratic majority at the time, the proposal faced significant opposition from internet service providers and the multifamily community and never came to a vote in 2024. Carr, who was elevated to his position by President Trump, has now removed this item from the commission's consideration, citing concerns about potential price increases for consumers.

Proponents of bulk-billing arrangements, including the National Multifamily Housing Council, National Apartment Association, and Real Estate Technology and Transformation Center, have praised Carr's decision. They argue that these agreements often provide high-speed internet to renters at rates up to 50 percent lower than standard retail pricing and remove barriers such as credit checks and installation fees.

Bulk billing arrangements have made high-speed internet more accessible and affordable for millions of Americans, especially for low-income renters and seniors living in affordable housing, according to NMHC President Sharon Wilson Géno.

However, critics of bulk billing practices argue that they effectively shut out competition, even if they don't explicitly grant exclusive rights to a single provider. In 2022, the FCC addressed this issue by banning exclusive revenue-sharing agreements between landlords and ISPs in multi-tenant buildings, a measure that received bipartisan support.

Public Knowledge's legal director, John Bergmayer, told Ars Technica that the proposed bulk-billing ban, which is now off the table, would have eliminated "one of the ways that landlords, HOAs, and telecom and cable companies collaborate to bypass the intended effort of [FCC] rules."

Chairman Carr defended his decision, calling the measure "regulatory overreach" and saying that it "would have hit families right in their pocketbooks"

Permalink to story:

 
Forcing the owner of the property to allow temporary residents to make changes to the property sounds like overregulation to me. Could it be cheaper for the tenant? Yes, but not necessarily. Tenants can change apartments if ISP choice is so important and landlords can still offer it as a feature.

Free markets and voluntary exchanges is the way. More rules and more bureaucracy to monitor and enforce said rules is not.
 
You know what truthfully I agree with those My apartment has provided internet I wasn't thrilled at first but it does work and the speeds are actually pretty decent and I'm only paying $7 a month for it.
 
Forcing the owner of the property to allow temporary residents to make changes to the property sounds like overregulation to me.
100%
I provide reliable\fast\cost-effective service for all my tenants. All they have to do is tell me to have it turned on. Each individual can even choose the speed they need.
But now, all the poles are in place, path routes are laid out and the holes have been drilled in my buildings and that's enough. Though satellite internet is fine, but it also must use the same cable running inside all the cabins.
With all that in place, I can't see how it can hurt to let the company they choose to hook on to existing lines. BUT NO NEW HOLES! :D

I do wish we could get wired as well as we are for electricity, because we could then allow each customer to choose an ISP like we can with power companies now.
 
Last edited:
Yay Murica! Freedom!!!
I don’t need to modify anything to get different ISPs over the exact same cable. I went from ACI to Rogers to Start with no issues. I changed the modem twice for that purpose. And that was all.
 
Internet service is not only about price. It is also service quality, the amount of data you can get and the bandwidth that is available to you. If the landlord get his/her kickback from the ISP, you think they care your connection is dropping, you have a download cap the size of a Gif file and the speed of good old ADSL of yore? Of course not. And there is no escape from this things without competition. But mister/miss landlord here are not short of excuses to keep things the way they are now.
 
You guys are very confused this isn't about freedom to choose it's about fiber needs a different input into the apartment then cable which needs a different input then DSL they're all different and then they're satellite which requires you to mount a dish The apartments have a right to say they don't want holes jilled in their building The FCC rules were going to take away property ownership rights from the building owner until the tenants you can do whatever you want You're all the holes you want to set up the internet that you choose that's what this was about and that was un American
 
You guys are very confused this isn't about freedom to choose it's about fiber needs a different input into the apartment then cable which needs a different input then DSL they're all different and then they're satellite which requires you to mount a dish The apartments have a right to say they don't want holes jilled in their building The FCC rules were going to take away property ownership rights from the building owner until the tenants you can do whatever you want You're all the holes you want to set up the internet that you choose that's what this was about and that was un American
You are way off. No one is forcing landlords to have cable and dsl or any of that.

This allows a landlord to basically get a kick back from an internet service provider by blocking other ISPs so that customers only have one choice and then they can be price gouged.
 
You guys are very confused this isn't about freedom to choose it's about fiber needs a different input into the apartment then cable which needs a different input then DSL they're all different and then they're satellite which requires you to mount a dish The apartments have a right to say they don't want holes jilled in their building The FCC rules were going to take away property ownership rights from the building owner until the tenants you can do whatever you want You're all the holes you want to set up the internet that you choose that's what this was about and that was un American

Who wants to rent from someone who'd go to court to avoid pulling cable?
 
Comcast will be happy to offer their award winning, data cap enabled internet plans.
Damn it, I feel so sorry for people they will have to use these ******, unable to pick a different company.
This is the worst thing that could happen to renters.
 
Forcing the owner of the property to allow temporary residents to make changes to the property sounds like overregulation to me.

As someone who has seen wwwwaaayyyy too many dish network satellite dishes hanging off the sides of apartment buildings, I could see something like this might have at least some bit of reason behind it. All the dish crap is all dead now and just a waste of space and something the landlord will just need to pay to remove/repair, I get it. Then when AT&T (or whoever) needs to run a fiber line into the building and drill holes in your walls to get the cable in, I can also see that as being annoying to deal with if the tenants don't want that ISP. Then the landlord needs to patch it too. So from the landlord perspective, it might make things easier to just say "this is the ISP here" and leave it at that. As long as they're not getting milked. Also, there's always 5G that a tenant could get, right?
 
Who wants to rent from someone who'd go to court to avoid pulling cable?
You're a renter you don't make the rules if I owned a rental property I absolutely would not be okay with somebody just willy-nilly drooling holes in my place. My old greenhouse when I decided I wanted to get fiber I talked to the landlord about it first it had they said no I would have stayed with the cable service I already had
 
As a renter in a low fixed income I would not be able to financially afford to pay for internet service and access without using my landlord's bundled billing internet service plan. I checked a lot of Internet service providers non bundled billing plans and they were all too expensive for me to financially afford. In addition I would not be able to pass the credit check if any internet service provider.
 
I'm very confused by some of these comments.

You can have multiple ISP on the same last mile provider for open access, so it's the same cable.

If it's to pull a new cable, near every rental contract has a clause in it io return the rental in the same/similar condition as when you received. They'd also do things like neatly pull the cabling in.

Having more than one ISP option for tenants is usually a positive and can increase your chance of getting a good tenant (e.g. If I mention am software dev, usually landlords are super happy as a profession, known to usually be good tenants).

And no, not every landlord is great, can be e.g. Someone who is not tech inclined or doesn't really pay attention at all, so only option is a $200 ISP with data cap, if alternative is like $50 for good net. Then there's the times where e.g. Landlord gets kickback or ISP says they'll do install cost so landlord can pull in net, but then it gets passed on to tenant as a super expensive monthly fee.

If free choice, all that would have happened is that those who have good net options already would have kept using the landlord provided one, only in bad options would they have tried for alternative, and they'll do the legwork to get good net onto your property, thereby making it better value for you as landlord for next tenant with little effort.

The reversal of this rule / not implementing it is just a loss for everyone. Cheaper net overall will also reduce landlords cost as well at their own home. Instead it will just be kept higher as why compete ever.
 
So much freedom!!!!
Also, the backstory to this is that ISPs will PAY the landlord money to allow them to be exclusive wired provider in the building (cable, fiber, DSL...). You better believe that those tenants will be paying the absolute highest service fee for both Internet and TV service.
 
I am stuck in such an agreement and my Internet is by no means cheaper! They know their the only company who can serve me and my Internet is $178 a frea*ing month! I don't believe this is a good thing.
 
Amazing how many folks did not read to the end. Even with a Dem majority, the FCC could not get it passed-one of the Dems voted against it.. All of the Organizations mentioned above are run by the Democrats and they did not want it. Don't worry, though. In a year or so there will be a housing/condo/apt surplus and you will have options. But blame Trump if it makes you feel better. It wasn't Biden who opened the borders and caused the housing, food, services shortages.....
 
Back