FCC to limit ISP monopolies on apartments

Posted:
in General Discussion
The Federal Communications Commission has announced rules that will give tenants in apartment buildings and office complexes more transparency, competition, and choice in broadband service options.




In a press release published Tuesday, the FCC announced that the new rules would prohibit certain internet service providers (ISPs) from entering into revenue-sharing agreements designed to keep competitors out of buildings. Providers must also inform tenants in simple, easy-to-understand language, the existing exclusive arrangements "that is readily accessible."

"One third of this country live in multi-tenant buildings where there often is only one choice for a broadband provider, and no ability to shop for a better deal," said Chairwoman Rosenworcel in the FCC's statement. "The rules we adopt today will crack down on practices that prevent competition and effectively block a consumer's ability to get lower prices or higher quality services."

Finally, the FCC clarified the rule on the installed wiring inside buildings that supply the internet bandwidth. They cannot be part of sale-and-leaseback arrangements that would block access to incoming competitors' wiring.

This is just the latest of a series of pro-net neutrality policies by FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel. In January, Rosenworcel was appointed acting chair of the Commission, vowing to enact net neutrality.

Rosenworcel was first nominated to a Commissioner role within the FCC in 2011. She voted in favor of reclassification of the Internet as a Title II utility back in 2015. She also voted against the Restoring Internet Freedom initiative that rolled back protections to support net neutrality under Ajit Pai's tenure as FCC Chair in 2017.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 
    jroywilliamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 27
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP
    Do you mean make it mandatory that tenants that service?
    mike1
  • Reply 3 of 27
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 
    You kind of answered your own question — how many cities have fiber sans ISP available as a public utility?
  • Reply 4 of 27
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 

    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 
    You kind of answered your own question — how many cities have fiber sans ISP available as a public utility?


  • Reply 5 of 27
    How on this God givens Earth can one NOT go through an Internet Service Provider, unless you have five (5) billion dollars to build your own fiber cable across all seas.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 27
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    good start. Now we need to work on providing competition for the remaining 2/3rds of the population. I have a choice of exactly one provider in my suburban Minneapolis home. 
    applguybeowulfschmidtdewmeJWSCbadmonkDetnator
  • Reply 7 of 27
    MplsP said:
    good start. Now we need to work on providing competition for the remaining 2/3rds of the population. I have a choice of exactly one provider in my suburban Minneapolis home. 
    My sentiments exactly.  "Now how about the rest of us?"
    Detnator
  • Reply 8 of 27
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,275member
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 

    Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 27
    MplsP said:
    good start. Now we need to work on providing competition for the remaining 2/3rds of the population. I have a choice of exactly one provider in my suburban Minneapolis home. 
    That’s because your local municipality’s franchise board has granted a monopoly to that provider in exchange for a percentage of the revenue. If you and your neighbors have an issue with it take it up with your local board.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 10 of 27
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,332member
    mike1 said:
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 

    Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
    I agree in theory, but in practice private companies would completely abandon or not invest in unprofitable markets if left to their own discretion. The biggest issue I’ve encountered with ISPs is the sparse number of choices, usually 1 or maybe 2, in low density suburban and rural areas, even where the average property values and family income levels are significantly higher than the regional and national average. It doesn’t matter if you’re willing to pay a couple hundred dollars a month for high speed service if the ISP doesn’t see itself getting a big enough ROI because you don’t have subscribers to make it worth their investment.

    If service availability was uniform across all areas with a wide variety of choices at all price levels, sure, make the ISPs compete to earn your business. Unfortunately that is not the case in a lot of markets.
    JWSCsconosciutowilliamlondonroundaboutnowGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 11 of 27
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    Alright.  I'll play devil's advocate here.  Someone has to.  As much as I agree that people should have more choice of ISPs, this seems to be a bit of overreach by the FCC.  Cheerleaders of this new rule should be cognizant of the unintended consequences.

    1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules.  It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch.  It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.  One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.

    2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit.  The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance.  Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance.  You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew.  This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not.  There's no free lunch.
    williamlondonmike1
  • Reply 12 of 27
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    JWSC said:
    Alright.  I'll play devil's advocate here.  Someone has to.  As much as I agree that people should have more choice of ISPs, this seems to be a bit of overreach by the FCC.  Cheerleaders of this new rule should be cognizant of the unintended consequences.

    1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules.  It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch.  It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.  One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.

    2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit.  The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance.  Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance.  You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew.  This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not.  There's no free lunch.
    1) You have apparently not been paying attention to the housing market. Neither renters nor buyers are in a position to "shop around" for much of anything, much less for an apartment that has better deals on internet service.
    roundaboutnowfastasleepGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 13 of 27
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    mike1 said:
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 

    Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
    We have now been through an entire generation's worth of the reflexive propaganda trope of "gubmint bad, bidness good."

    ISPs, telcom and cable companies are all giant corporations with lumbering bureaucracies. Pick any one of them, combine its name with the words "customer service" in a search box, and you will find endless laments and horror stories that are as bad or worse than any comparable complaints about government bureaucracies. Whether the MBA dogmatists like it or not, broadband internet service necessarily functions as a basic infrastructure utility. 

    Government rightfully operates or heavily regulates utility infrastructure because the national economic interest lies with assuring that everyone has equal access to these resources. It is incredibly ironic that the libertarian impulses of folk living in red-state flyover country works hard against their own interests and flies in the face of the fact that, based on purely private-market considerations, they are in an even weaker bargaining position than poor urban folk in deep blue territory. From an ISP's perspective, if there's enough population density, providing cheap service to poor city dwellers is vastly more lucrative than stringing fiber for miles and miles just to hook up a handful of suburban sprawl dwellers or more rural customers, even if those folks are more affluent and can afford to pay a premium over standard full-price. It's the same as the loonies who want to privatize the post office, claiming FedEx is much more efficient, and not considering that sending a birthday card to grandma costs between 40 to 80 times more with FedEx than it does with USPS, depending on where grandma lives.

    Likewise, it's ironic that any libertarian-minded person would object to requiring increased competition of ISPs in apartment buildings. The density argument noted above means that apartment buildings naturally lend themselves to greater ISP competition. It's worth stringing the relatively short lines to compete for relatively large numbers of customers. The only reason that doesn't happen is because the apartment building owners prefer to block that competition in order to scrape money from the ISPs by granting 'exclusive access' to those relatively large numbers of customers. ISPs benefit because, rather then competing through price and service for only a percentage of a building's customers, paying a single, hefty tribute to the landlord gives them all the building's customers, with no need to offer competitive pricing to any of them. Landlords win, ISPs win, and screw the tenants. 

    Tell us again how is it private enterprise always handles things better?
    roundaboutnowfastasleepmuthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMacMplsP
  • Reply 14 of 27
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    mike1 said:
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 

    Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.
    Just because your government might be shitty, don't tar them all with the same brush.

    The road of technology is littered with the husks of brankrupted private enterprises, and the cries of frustration from consumers who have been failed by them and lost money to them.
    roundaboutnowfastasleepmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 15 of 27
    JWSC said:

    1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules.  It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch.  It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.  
    LOL have you seen the fucking housing market lately? I'm going to guess that's a no. 

    One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.
    ^ Found the Libertarian! The free market will regulate itself, except when it doesn't which is pretty much always as has been shown over and over in history, and those who are most vulnerable being the biggest losers in the end. It's hard to believe we're still hearing people making this kind of argument in the face of myriad evidence to the contrary.

    2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit.  The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance.  Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance.  You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew.  This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not.  There's no free lunch.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

    I'm gonna take a wild guess you're against renters' rights laws and other consumer protections, too.
    edited February 2022 GeorgeBMacMplsP
  • Reply 16 of 27
    AppleZulu said:

    [snip] 

    Tell us again how is it private enterprise always handles things better?
    👏🏻 A+++ Very well said!
    edited February 2022 muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMacMplsP
  • Reply 17 of 27
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    JWSC said:

    1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules.  It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch.  It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.  
    LOL have you seen the fucking housing market lately? I'm going to guess that's a no. 

    One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.
    ^ Found the Libertarian! The free market will regulate itself, except when it doesn't which is pretty much always as has been shown over and over in history, and those who are most vulnerable being the biggest losers in the end. It's hard to believe we're still hearing people making this kind of argument in the face of myriad evidence to the contrary.

    2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit.  The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance.  Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance.  You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew.  This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not.  There's no free lunch.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

    I'm gonna take a wild guess you're against renters' rights laws and other consumer protections, too.
    Your replies indicates you are slick with your words and slights.  But they're got no substance to them.  It would be nice if you could put some thought into countering what I pointed out instead of throwing labels around.  Just a thought.
  • Reply 18 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    good start. Now we need to work on providing competition for the remaining 2/3rds of the population. I have a choice of exactly one provider in my suburban Minneapolis home. 

    The flip side of that are that "somebody" (that ultimately means us!) would have to pay to build out duplicate and maybe even triplicate services -- which is a complete, total waste of money.

    Better, I would think, would be to go back to the original setup where ISPs were regulated monopolistic utilities -- obligated to provide quality service at reasonable prices that people can afford and that provide them with a reasonable profit.  It's worked for over 100 years with other utilities.  But somehow the ISPs weazeled out of it.

    The savings from not having to pay for duplicate and triplicate services in one area could be used to roll out broadband to those areas of the nation that do not have access to it.


    mike1
  • Reply 19 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    mike1 said:
    rob53 said:
    It would be better for the tenants if the apartment building installed a fiber gig service without an ISP, that would save them money and headaches dealing with crazy ISPs. It would be even better if each city created their own fiber service, just like my city has. 

    Oh great. Another taxpayer funded, poorly run government "service" that is better handled by private enterprise. Because governments at every level have shown that they are able to keep up with technological advances and consumer hardware.

    Obviously it is NOT being handled better by private enterprise.
    Remember:  private enterprise only cares about its own well being -- not that of the nation or its people.
    ....  That anti-government push for the last half century has left us lagging much of the developed and developing world in multiple ways and areas.
  • Reply 20 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said:

    1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules.  It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch.  It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.  
    LOL have you seen the fucking housing market lately? I'm going to guess that's a no. 

    One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.
    ^ Found the Libertarian! The free market will regulate itself, except when it doesn't which is pretty much always as has been shown over and over in history, and those who are most vulnerable being the biggest losers in the end. It's hard to believe we're still hearing people making this kind of argument in the face of myriad evidence to the contrary.

    2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit.  The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance.  Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance.  You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew.  This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not.  There's no free lunch.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

    I'm gonna take a wild guess you're against renters' rights laws and other consumer protections, too.
    Your replies indicates you are slick with your words and slights.  But they're got no substance to them.  It would be nice if you could put some thought into countering what I pointed out instead of throwing labels around.  Just a thought.

    He just called bull to the bull.  That's all.
Sign In or Register to comment.