Broadband choice reduction by Brendan Carr's FCC

2025 FCC Bulk Billing Decision Impact on Tenant Choice

In January 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a sweeping decision affecting consumer choice in broadband internet for residents of multi-tenant buildings. This decision reversed course on a previous proposal that would have given tenants more control over their internet service provider options.

Understanding the Changes: A Timeline

To get how consumer rights with internet service in multi-tenant buildings have changed over the years, here is the timeline:

Pre-2022 Status Quo

Prior to 2022, three key practices existed:

• Building owners couldn't enter into "exclusive access" agreements (e.g., preventing Verizon from wiring a building that TimeWarner serviced)
• Building owners could implement "bulk billing" arrangements (requiring all tenants to pay for a specific provider's service as part of rent)
• Building owners could enter into revenue sharing agreements with ISPs

2022 FCC Rule Changes

In 2022, the FCC modified these rules:

• The ban on exclusive access agreements remained
• Bulk billing arrangements remained permissible
• Revenue sharing agreements between building owners and ISPs were prohibited

March 2024 Proposed Changes

Then-Chairwoman Rosenworcel's proposal would have:

• Maintained the ban on exclusive access agreements
• Required bulk billing arrangements to include tenant opt-out provisions
• Maintained the ban on revenue sharing agreements

January 2025 Final Outcome

Chairman Carr's decision maintained the 2022-2024 framework:

• Building owners still cannot enter exclusive access agreements
• Building owners can continue mandatory bulk billing without opt-out provisions
• Revenue sharing agreements remain prohibited

Practical Example

Here's how these rules would work in practice in an apartment complex in 2025:

• The landlord can't prevent Verizon from installing service even if they prefer TimeWarner (exclusive access prohibition)
• The landlord can require all tenants to pay $50 monthly for TimeWarner service as part of their rent, even if tenants don't want it (bulk billing permitted)
• The landlord can't receive payments or revenue shares from TimeWarner in exchange for making their service mandatory (revenue sharing prohibition)

This negatively affects consumer choice through the bulk billing provision, by forcing tenants into paying for service from a provider they may not want. While multiple providers may have physical access to a building, the economic reality of mandatory bulk billing greatly diminishes the economic viability of another ISP wiring the building.

Background

In March 2024, then-FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel proposed rules that would've banned mandatory "bulk billing" arrangements in multi-tenant buildings. Under those arrangements tenants have to pay for internet service from a specific ISP chosen by the landlord; even if they would prefer a different provider.

The proposed rules would've:

• Allowed tenants to opt out of bulk billing arrangements
• Banned mandatory payment for unwanted services
• Tried to increase competition by making it viable for alternative providers to serve these buildings. Tenants may be less likely to pay for internet with another provider if they are forced to pay for internet with their current provider.

The 2025 Decision

On January 24, 2025, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr ended consideration of the bulk billing proposal. This decision maintains the status quo where:

• Property owners can keep forcing tenants to participate in bulk billing arrangements
• Tenants must pay for the building's chosen ISP even if they don't want the service
• Alternative providers face economic barriers to serving buildings with bulk billing arrangements

How this wrecks Consumer Choice & freedom

The decision has different implications for consumers depending on their perspective and situation:

Potential Benefits Cited by Supporters

The National Multifamily Housing Council and other industry groups argue that bulk billing arrangements:

• Secure internet service at rates up to 50% lower than standard retail pricing
• Remove barriers like credit checks & security deposits
• Make high-speed internet more accessible for low-income renters and seniors

Consumer Protection Concerns

Consumer advocacy groups including Public Knowledge have identified several issues:

• Tenants cannot opt out of internet they don't want or need
• Residents eligible for low-income plans or Lifeline subsidies cannot access these programs
• The arrangements create "in-building monopolies"

Relationship to Existing Rules

This decision exists within an overall framework of FCC rules regarding multi-tenant environments. The Commission previously:

• Banned exclusive service agreements giving providers sole rights to serve a building
• Prohibited revenue sharing arrangements between landlords and ISPs
• Required providers to disclose exclusive marketing arrangements to tenants