The Ongoing Battle for Broadband Choice in Apartment Buildings
For fifteen years, consumers have struggled with limited internet options in their apartment buildings. The core issue? Landlords effectively granting exclusive access to a single internet service provider (ISP). While outright exclusive agreements are technically prohibited, the practice persists through a variety of workarounds.
The problem: “Exclusivity by Another Name”
Landlords can simply refuse to work with any ISP except a favored provider – often in exchange for undisclosed payments. As one observer noted, this “exclusivity by any other name still feels just as abusive.” You deserve a choice of providers, but these arrangements stifle competition and leave you with possibly higher prices and limited service options.
A History of Ineffective Regulation
The Federal Communications commission (FCC) periodically attempts to address this issue,but progress has been frustratingly slow. Historically, the agency’s efforts have been hampered by political shifts.
* Republican administrations frequently enough prioritize deregulation, actively supporting monopolization.
* Democratic administrations tend to offer “performative solutions” – changes that look good on paper but fail to meaningfully challenge the power of large ISPs.
In 2022, the Biden FCC updated the rules, but the changes were limited.They only applied to customary cable and phone companies, excluding newer broadband providers like fiber, fixed-wireless, and Wi-Fi ISPs. These companies are increasingly striking exclusive deals with landlords to avoid competition, as evidenced by discussions on platforms like Reddit.
Eroded Enforcement & The Rise of State-Level Action
Currently, the FCC’s consumer protection authority is significantly weakened. This means federal enforcement of existing rules is unlikely in the near future. Consequently, a handful of states are attempting to fill the void.
However, even these efforts face significant hurdles. Powerful companies like AT&T and Comcast wield considerable influence in many state legislatures. Even in progressive states like California, passing meaningful consumer protections can be an uphill battle.
What This Means for You
You’re likely to see a growing patchwork of regulations as states attempt to address the lack of federal action. This situation highlights a broader trend: states stepping in to protect consumers when the federal government fails to do so.
Why This Matters: The Impact of Limited Choice
Limited competition in apartment building internet access has several negative consequences:
* higher Prices: Without competition, ISPs have little incentive to offer competitive pricing.
* Poor Service: You may receive subpar service quality due to a lack of alternatives.
* Lack of Innovation: Limited competition stifles innovation and prevents you from benefiting from the latest advancements in internet technology.
* Reduced Bargaining Power: You have little leverage to negotiate better terms or demand improvements.
Looking Ahead
The fight for broadband choice in apartment buildings is far from over. It requires sustained advocacy, vigilant state-level action, and a renewed commitment to consumer protection at the federal level. You should contact your representatives and advocate for policies that promote competition and protect your right to choose your internet provider.
Resources:
* Techdirt: 15 Years late, FCC Cracks Down on Broadband Apartment Monopolies
* Reddit Discussion on apartment Internet Monopolies
Filed Under: apartment buildings, broadband, bulk billing, California, competition, developments, high-speed internet, landlords, tenants
Companies: AT&T, CBVA, Comcast
