FCC’s Carr ends ban on bulk billing broadband deals for multi-family homes

According to Carr, these bulk billing programs have enabled families living in apartments and other multi-tenant environments to pay lower prices for Internet service.

“During the Biden-Harris Administration, FCC leadership put forward a ‘bulk billing’ proposal that could have raised the price of Internet service for Americans living in apartments by as much as 50 percent,” he said in a prepared statement. “This regulatory overreach from Washington would have hit families right in their pocketbooks when they were already hurting from the last Administration’s inflationary policies.”

Housing groups express gratitude

Three housing lobbying groups—the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), the National Apartment Association (NAA), and the Real Estate Technology and Transformation Center (RETTC)—all of which have opposed new regulations for multi-housing broadband expressed gratitude to the new FCC chair.

In a press release, these groups said withdrawal of the ban on bulk-billing arrangements will achieve two main goals: preserving affordable internet access and paving the way for new broadband network expansions.

These associations maintain that bulk-billing agreements allow property owners to negotiate directly with internet service providers, typically securing high-speed internet for renters at rates up to 50 percent lower than standard retail pricing. Also, bulk billing removes barriers to broadband adoption, like credit checks, security deposits, equipment rentals, or 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,” said Sharon Wilson Géno, President of NMHC. “We’re glad that the Chairman and the FCC are sticking up for housing providers and renters rather than threatening the existing regulatory framework that has successfully deployed affordable and reliable broadband to communities across the nation.”

Although the FCC does not allow service providers to gain the exclusive right to access and serve a building, incumbent providers have found other ways to prevent competitors from offering their services. In 2022, the FCC added a ban on exclusive revenue-sharing agreements between landlords and ISPs in multi-tenant buildings. The revenue-sharing ban was approved 4–0, including votes from both Rosenworcel and Carr.

Unsurprisingly, cable giants Comcast, Charter, Cox, and cable lobby group NCTA—all of which have long-standing agreements with multi-tenant property owners and managers—opposed Rosenworcel's plan for a bulk billing ban.

In a joint filing, this group said, "interfering with the ability of building owners to offer these arrangements to their tenants will result in higher broadband and video prices and other harms for consumers, with questionable and limited benefits."

Further, the group said bulk billing arrangements can help efforts to provide broadband to low-income consumers—a majority of which live in multi-dwelling buildings.

“A significant portion of low-income consumers live in MTEs, and BEAD and other government programs are focused on increasing deployment and adoption in these buildings,” the joint filing said. “Bulk billing arrangements are used by local governments as a critical tool in reaching residents in these buildings.”

Preventing MDU broadband monopolies

Roseworcel’s proposal focuses on eliminating “bulk billing” arrangements that require tenants to choose a specific broadband service provider for their household.

The goal was to prevent the emergence of multi-dwelling unit broadband monopolies. 

Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge and 30 others asked the FCC to approve Rosenworcel's proposal in July.

“For the many tenants trapped with high-cost or less-capable internet that does not meet their needs, an opt-out option provides a vital escape,” the consumer groups said in a letter to the FCC. “This is especially true for those eligible for low-income plans or Lifeline subsidies, which are not available in a bulk billing arrangement. It also introduces competitive pressure to ensure landlords and ISPs do not enter sweetheart deals at the expense of tenants--particularly low-income tenants.”

The group said that bulk billing for internet often can’t address the needs of low-income renters.

“By its nature, the unrestricted practice prevents low-income renters from participating in a low-income plan the ISP may offer elsewhere,” the group said. “Or if the provider does not participate in Lifeline (or the Affordable Connectivity Program should it be revived), this would prevent low-income renters from receiving the subsidy they need to participate in our technological ecosystem. This  issue is exacerbated when Public Housing Agencies (PHAs)– local agencies that develop public affordable housing– are locked into exclusive agreements.”

For related articles, visit the Business Topic Center.
For more information on high-speed transmission systems and suppliers, visit the Lightwave Buyer’s Guide.
To stay abreast of fiber network deployments, subscribe to Lightwave’s Service Providers and Datacom/Data Center newsletters.