Broadband bulk billing FCC chair helps ISPs and landlords make deals that renters cant escape Brendan Carr dumps plan to ban bulk billing deals that lock renters into one ISP. Jon Brodkin Jan 27, 2025 4:13 pm | 7 Credit: Getty Images | Javier Zayas Photography Credit: Getty Images | Javier Zayas Photography Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreFederal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has dropped the previous administration's proposal to ban bulk billing deals that require tenants to pay for a specific provider's Internet service.In March 2024, then-Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel proposed a ban on arrangements in which "tenants are required to pay for broadband, cable, and satellite service provided by a specific communications provider, even if they do not wish to take the service or would prefer to use another provider."Rosenworcel's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was opposed by Internet providers and sat on the FCC's list of items on circulation throughout 2024 without any final vote, despite the commission having a 3-2 Democratic majority at the time. Carr, who was elevated to the chairmanship by President Trump, emptied the list of items under consideration by commissioners on Friday.With bulk billing deals in which a company agrees to provide service to every tenant of a building, residents are billed a prorated share of the total cost. Tenants may be billed by either the landlord or the telco provider. Bulk billing contracts are only banned by the FCC when they give a provider the exclusive right to access and serve a building. But when tenants are forced to pay for one provider's service, other providers aren't likely to see much opportunity in entering the building.Technically, Rosenworcel's plan would have allowed bulk billing arrangements to continue as long as tenants are given the ability to opt out of them. In March, Rosenworcel's office said her plan would "increase competition for communications service in these buildings by making it more profitable for competitive providers to deploy service in buildings where it is currently too expensive to serve consumers because tenants are required to take a certain provider's service.""Too often, tenants living in these households are forced to pay high prices with limited choices for Internet or other services," Rosenworcel's office said in March, arguing that her plan would "lower costs and address the lack of choice for broadband services" in apartments, condos, and public housing.Lobby groups thank new FCC chairHousing industry lobby groups praised Carr in a press release issued by the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), National Apartment Association (NAA), and Real Estate Technology and Transformation Center (RETTC). "His decision to withdraw the proposal will ensure that millions of consumersrenters, homeowners and condominium ownerswill continue to reap the benefits of bulk billing," the press release said.The industry press release claims that bulk billing agreements negotiated between property owners and Internet service providers "typically secur[e] high-speed Internet for renters at rates up to 50 percent lower than standard retail pricing" and remove "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," NMHC President Sharon Wilson Gno said.While the FCC prohibits deals in which a service provider has the exclusive right to access and serve a building, there are other ways in which competitors can be effectively shut out of buildings. In 2022, the FCC said its existing rules weren't strong enough and added a ban on exclusive revenue-sharing agreements between landlords and ISPs in multi-tenant buildings. The revenue-sharing ban was approved 40, including votes from both Rosenworcel and Carr.Comcast, Charter, Cox, and cable lobby group NCTA opposed Rosenworcel's plan for a bulk billing ban, saying that "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."Carr issued a statement today, saying, "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. This regulatory overreach from Washington would have hit families right in their pocketbooks at a time when they were already hurting from the last administration's inflationary policies. That is why you saw a broad and bipartisan coalition of groups opposing the plan. After all, seniors, students, and low-income individuals would have been hit particularly hard." Carr also said that he plans more actions "to reverse the last administration's costly regulatory overreach."Deals preserve in-building monopoliesConsumer advocacy group Public Knowledge and 30 other groups urged the FCC to approve Rosenworcel's proposal in July. "As they exist now, bulk billing arrangements sacrifice consumer choice to preserve in-building monopolies at the expense of tenants," the groups said in a letter to the commission. "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. This is especially true for those eligible for low-income plans or Lifeline subsidy, which by definition are not available in a bulk billing arrangement."Because Rosenworcel's plan was in the form of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC would have sought public comments before making a final decision. "The best way to determine whether bulk billing does more harm or more good, whether providers genuinely need 100 percent sign up to make service viable, or other questions as to whether allowing opt out better serves the public by offering more competition, is to move forward with the item," the advocacy groups' letter said.John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, told Ars today that a bulk billing ban would have made the commission's rules more effective "by eliminating one of the ways that landlords, HOAs, and telecom and cable companies collaborate to bypass the intended effort of those rules, and require people to pay for Internet service they don't want or need. It's a shame. The arguments on the pro-bulk-billing side were spurious or overblown, and the MTE [multiple tenant environments] access rules have broad, bipartisan support, as well as a lot of industry support."Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 7 Comments