FCC Bans Deals That Block Competition In Apartments (arstechnica.com) 59
The Federal Communications Commission has voted to ban the exclusive revenue-sharing deals between landlords and Internet service providers that prevent broadband competition in apartment buildings and other multi-tenant environments. The new ban and other rule changes were adopted in a 4-0 vote announced yesterday. Ars Technica reports: Although the FCC "has long banned Internet service providers from entering into sweetheart deals with landlords that guarantee they are the only provider in the building," evidence submitted to the commission "made it clear that our existing rules are not doing enough and that we can do more to pry open the door for providers who want to offer competitive service in apartment buildings," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in her statement on the vote. The broadband industry has sidestepped rules that already exist with "a complex web of agreements between incumbent service providers and landlords that keep out competitors and undermine choice," she said.
With the new rules, "we ban exclusive revenue sharing agreements, where the provider agrees with the building that only it and no other provider can give the building owner a cut of the revenue from the building. We also ban graduated revenue sharing agreements, which increase the percentage of revenue that the broadband provider directs to the landlord as the number of tenants served by the provider go up," Rosenworcel said. Rosenworcel had circulated the proposal to commissioners in late January. The new prohibitions on graduated and exclusive revenue-sharing agreements apply retroactively. "The rules we adopt thus prohibit providers from (1) executing new graduated or exclusive revenue sharing agreements and (2) enforcing existing graduated or exclusive revenue sharing agreements on a going forward basis," the FCC said.
Exclusive marketing agreements are still allowed, but the FCC is requiring broadband providers to disclose those agreements to tenants. "Such disclosure must be included on all written marketing material directed at tenants or prospective tenants of an MTE [multiple tenant environment] subject to the arrangement and must explain in clear, conspicuous, legible, and visible language that the provider has the right to exclusively market its communications services to tenants in the MTE, that such a right does not suggest that the provider is the only entity that can provide communications services to tenants in the MTE, and that service from an alternative provider may be available," the FCC order said. The FCC vote also closes a loophole that ISPs used to enter into exclusive wiring deals with landlords. "We clarify that sale-and-leaseback arrangements violate our existing rules that regulate cable wiring inside buildings," Rosenworcel said. "Since the 1990s, we have had rules that allow buildings and tenants to exercise choice about how to use the wiring in the building when they are switching cable providers, but some companies have circumvented these rules by selling the wiring to the building and leasing it back on an exclusive basis. We put an end to that practice today."
With the new rules, "we ban exclusive revenue sharing agreements, where the provider agrees with the building that only it and no other provider can give the building owner a cut of the revenue from the building. We also ban graduated revenue sharing agreements, which increase the percentage of revenue that the broadband provider directs to the landlord as the number of tenants served by the provider go up," Rosenworcel said. Rosenworcel had circulated the proposal to commissioners in late January. The new prohibitions on graduated and exclusive revenue-sharing agreements apply retroactively. "The rules we adopt thus prohibit providers from (1) executing new graduated or exclusive revenue sharing agreements and (2) enforcing existing graduated or exclusive revenue sharing agreements on a going forward basis," the FCC said.
Exclusive marketing agreements are still allowed, but the FCC is requiring broadband providers to disclose those agreements to tenants. "Such disclosure must be included on all written marketing material directed at tenants or prospective tenants of an MTE [multiple tenant environment] subject to the arrangement and must explain in clear, conspicuous, legible, and visible language that the provider has the right to exclusively market its communications services to tenants in the MTE, that such a right does not suggest that the provider is the only entity that can provide communications services to tenants in the MTE, and that service from an alternative provider may be available," the FCC order said. The FCC vote also closes a loophole that ISPs used to enter into exclusive wiring deals with landlords. "We clarify that sale-and-leaseback arrangements violate our existing rules that regulate cable wiring inside buildings," Rosenworcel said. "Since the 1990s, we have had rules that allow buildings and tenants to exercise choice about how to use the wiring in the building when they are switching cable providers, but some companies have circumvented these rules by selling the wiring to the building and leasing it back on an exclusive basis. We put an end to that practice today."
Re:By what authority does the FCC attempt to do th (Score:5, Insightful)
They have no right to regulate private property owners. They can't cancel contracts between land owners and ISP's.
If you bothered to read what they do you would have found this [fcc.gov]:
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation.
Since they are the agency who allows ISPs to operate, they can regulate.
Also, it's not about the property owners, it's about the ISPs and how they operate.
Re: By what authority does the FCC attempt to do t (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since they are the agency who allows ISPs to operate, they can regulate.
A major nit: the FCC doesn't allow ISPs to operate. ISPs have a right to operate until the FCC bans them (assuming the FCC is given authority to ban an activity). This is just like I have a pre-existing right to free speech and can say what I want until some law or rule stops me. Maybe that's a distinction without a difference since we don't seem to worry about whether regulatory bodies have the authority to ban certain practices any more.
If you bothered to read what they do you would have found this [fcc.gov]:
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation.
That's nice but it's quite vague. The question is, where does that au
Re: (Score:2)
>How is this not about landlords? They're half of the regulation. They no longer can sign a contract they think in their best interest.
I think that you are mis-representing this. It is the *tenants* who can currently not sign contracts they think are in *their* best interests. The landlord's best interests shouldn't be involved in the decision of what cable provider I get.
Re: (Score:2)
>How is this not about landlords? They're half of the regulation. They no longer can sign a contract they think in their best interest.
I think that you are mis-representing this. It is the *tenants* who can currently not sign contracts they think are in *their* best interests. The landlord's best interests shouldn't be involved in the decision of what cable provider I get.
Good point. There are three parties involved. The regulation, however, most immediately restricts the contracts ISPs and landlords can enter into. Tenants are one step removed.
Thing is, the landlord is involved. If I own a building, I have to decide what sort of wiring to provide to each unit. With modern construction, maybe this isn't an issue: every unit has both POTS and cable already wired up. But maybe not. Older buildings might only have one or the other.
But as I wrote, there are myriad potential bene
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They do. It is the FCC. I could go on about how as a private landlord you are renting to the public so certain services should be provided without special deals made behind the scenes. Nor will I go on about customer choice and other nonsense either.
It is the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way: They are opening up contracts between renters and ISPs.
Currently, the landlord can restrict access of tenants to better ISP options for their own personal benefit.
Re: (Score:1)
What if the ISP needs to make changes to the property for wire/fiber runs? Or needs to host switching equipment in the building and use power? The property owners, not the FCC should have control over physical access and changes to their properties. This should be nothing more than a requirement that property owners disclose any agreements and make it clear of which providers can be used by their tenants and at what rates. Prospective tenants can then use those disclosures as part of their decision proc
Re:By what authority does the FCC attempt to do th (Score:4, Informative)
This is not forcing building owners to allow access to an ISP.
Previously, an ISP would pay the building owner for exclusivity. That got banned.
So instead, the ISP gave the building owners a cut of the profits, but only with an agreement that no other ISP would give them a cut of their profit. Now that is banned, too.
Now, short of any more loopholes they can find, multiple ISPs can offer building owners cuts of the profit, which maybe incentivizes building owners to allow multiple ISPs to operate in their building. Likely they'll only allow the one that offers the biggest cut though, because if the tenants have no choice, then all of them will be on a plan where the building owner gets the most money.
Please take all this with a grain of salt, I have only read the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the building owner can just provide a connection and raise the rent by enough to cover the costs plus some extra profit. Sure, folks can use DSL or whatever... but they can't modify the building, and even if they don't use the the service they aren't getting a deduction on their rent so they may as well shut up and use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem for owners is if they don't offer the service the tenant goes where it is offered. If it's an older building it might need cabling and equipment upgrades to get high speed. Owners look at cost of installing all of that and how long it will take to recoup the cost. In these deals often the ISP does all that and signs a deal so they recover their costs and give a little to the owner, The owner usually gets to keep the upgrade after the contract expires
How often are cabling upgrades actually needed for high-speed Internet, realistically?
Most people don't need (and can't afford) Internet service faster than 1 gigabit. I can theoretically get 3-gigabit service here, but only if you have fiber nearby. It costs $300 per month. Maybe with DOCSIS 4 (which they're just starting to roll out), they'll eventually start opening up faster service to more people at a lower price, but I wouldn't hold my breath on multi-gigabit Internet service being affordable in th
Re: (Score:2)
You mentioned wiring your house in 2001. A house is easy with cavity walls
Re: (Score:2)
Most buildings even those built as little as 20 years ago did not have Cat 5 installed at best they might get cable tv type cable in larger installs. Its only been the last 5-10 years where it became a "must" to install additional cable for internet at actual building stage.
It's not a "must" now, realistically.
This story is talking about cable companies putting in that wiring, selling it to the building owner, and then leasing it back with exclusivity terms that prevent other companies from using it. Realistically, if a cable company hooks up an apartment building for Internet service, odds are they're just running RG-6 to each unit, not fiber or Ethernet.
Cable companies benefit greatly from upgrading to at least RG-6, because then they can run DOCSIS at high speeds. Because
Re: (Score:2)
So instead, the ISP gave the building owners a cut of the profits, but only with an agreement that no other ISP would give them a cut of their profit. Now that is banned, too.
Now, short of any more loopholes they can find, multiple ISPs can offer building owners cuts of the profit, which maybe incentivizes building owners to allow multiple ISPs to operate in their building. Likely they'll only allow the one that offers the biggest cut though, because if the tenants have no choice, then all of them will be on a plan where the building owner gets the most money.
Here's the thing: we have no idea how this will all play out. It could be that if AT&T pays a landlord for exclusive access, the landlord will pocket the incentive. Or they may lower rents, do a better job wiring for AT&T, do a better job making sure the connection works, AT&T might have more incentive to sent out service techs, all sorts of things. Who's to say those things are less valuable than having a choice of ISPs?
I'll tell you who can't: the FCC. I'd let the market duke it out. There are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the ISP needs to make changes to the property for wire/fiber runs?
See, here's the problem--we've forgotten what an ISP is!
When I first subscribed to Internet service in 1998, I signed up with an ISP called Concentric. Their domain was concentric.net, which interestingly now redirects to Verizon. They had a local dial-up number I called with my 56K modem. No one from Concentric ever needed to come on to my property for any reason. The physical line was provided by my local phone company.
Circa 2006 I switched to DSL. My ISP was XMission (still one of the greatest in the bus
Re: (Score:2)
The building manager would be responsible for the wiring in the building, but the ISP (which is usually the company that runs the lines these days) would be responsible for the wiring up to the building and the connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We value freedom over...
Only in a very limited way though. There's an old bit about how your right to swing your fist ends at my face, but there are plenty of Americans these days who would end up enraged that anyone would dare to limit their right to swing their fist anywhere they want.
Re: (Score:3)
People consistently believe that property owners have more rights than they really do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A contract that conflicts with the law always loses.
Re: (Score:2)
They absolutely do have the right to regulate private property owners, and they absolutely can cancel contract that are against public policy.
These contracts are against public policy. They are now null and void. Done.
Not sure why you think an illegal contract is enforceable.
Well maybe I have a chance now (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not dissatisfied with my service, but I really look forward to there being some actual competition, so that I am not captive by one company alone. Here's hoping...
Re: Well maybe I have a chance now (Score:2)
Don't worry, you're not alone. I live in a mansion in the hills, and all AT&T can offer is 128kbps IDSL. Been on their waiting list for fiber for 12 years. The plebes 600ft below have fiber. I get to keep the multi-million dollar views, though. And Comcast at 1.4gbps down/45 mbps up. No Comcast fiber service either. Not that I would pay $300/ month for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Get one of the plebes to install good internet and feed it to you from their property through something you set up. (you pay the bills, of course).
About 20 years ago a tech columnist had a no-internet-but-dialup-or-satellite problem at his mountain retreat north of San Francisco. Nearest connection points were the other side of a mountain or a far away town served by cable. He started by trying to find houses in the town that he had line-of-sight to through trees and everything, and go try to talk them into
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the legality, practically, I doubt I would actually achieve faster upload speed over that distance vs the 45 Mbps upstream I have now with Comcast. There are wireless ISPs operating, and the relevant frequencies might already be congested.
I wish the cable bandwidth was more symmetrical. I would take 500 Mbps / 500 Mbps any day over 1.4 Gbps / 45 Mbps. Or 750/250. Or anything with a smaller downstream to upstream ratio. 45 Mbps is really lame and rules out a ton of applications such as cloud backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreement terms depend on locality, but generally a residential internet agreement doesn't allow for commercial reselling, but doesn't say anything about "sharing" with neighbors, property lines, or anything like that.
As far as the medium of the connection... Wireless frequency saturation may just be a matter of using highly directional antennas. Or if you have a land path, 600ft is short enough for gigabit ethernet with only a single repeater. Or at that point, run your own fiber.
Alternatively, maybe you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Gigabit wireless speeds ? I can't even get that from my phone 10ft away from the AP within my home with Wifi. What chance is there for Gbps throughput to be achieved at 600 ft ? What technology actually delivers this, not just on paper specs ?
As far as cloud, the reason I am ruling it out is the speed. I have about 5TB I'd like to backup. Incremental backups might be viable, but the initial backup would have to be performed offline. At 45 Mbps upload speed, it would take 10 days running 24/7 for one full ba
Re: (Score:2)
Wireles shot at 600 feet? Any dedicated backhaul solution, not just throwing up a wi-fi AP.
For that range, I'd suggest an AF5xHD pair with hood antennas, turned way down in power.
If you want more like 10 gb/s speed, you'd be looking into 60 ghz, 80 ghz, or free space optics.
Re: (Score:2)
Highly directional antennas. Antennas so directional you basically aim them with lasers - the gain on them is extremely high (+30dbi or better).
If you're linking two places that are basically fixed locations, this works extremely well as long as the mounting is secure
Re: (Score:2)
Not happening - the equipment isn't designed for it. The cable system is designed to be one way - the two way interactive features were an anomaly and as a result, the available return paths is highly limited. This was because the reverse amplifier
That's nice and all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but I would much rather they do something about the massive consolidation in apartment ownership.
It's hard to see how the FCC has jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, that's not the FCC. That is your local government. You need to check there.
Re: (Score:3)
Always fascinated me that corporations are allowed to own residential buildings.
I've heard in Denmark homeowners get a massive property tax break (of the really high property taxes) for the home designated as their place of residence. Any other residential property, they own doesn't get the break, because you can't register at two places at once. It makes home consolidation extremely prohibitive.
I think it is a good way to keep home prices reasonable and avoid concentration.
I've
Re: (Score:1)
Whackamole (Score:4, Informative)
They might ban certain kinds of deals. But ISPs and apartment owners are very ingenious when it comes to finding ways to skirt regulations. Until the FCC mandates that apartment tenants have the individual right to choose whatever provider offers service in their area, and that apartment owners can't deny access, very little will change.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the FCC mandates that apartment tenants have the individual right to choose whatever provider offers service in their area, and that apartment owners can't deny access
That is how it is in the rest of the world, with only a few exceptions.
Re:Decision is correct but not from the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
Decisions like this should be made by elected officials
Elected officials are the ones who gave [fcc.gov] the FCC their original mandate. [cornell.edu] If elected officials felt so inclined, they have broad power over everything the FCC does and can undo anything they purpose with a simple vote. More so, if elected officials willed it, they can be rid of the FCC completely.
The FCC should be the enforcers, not the law makers
You should bring that up with your elected officials, they are the ones who explicitly grant the authority to do what this agency does.
Too many self-serving or bad government rules, regulations and policies that have the force of law can not and will not be changed because the decision makers are unaccountable
That is not how the United States government works. Full stop.
They are too often in the pocket of lobbyists or are industry insiders or one step from being hired by the industry they regulate. No conflicts there.
And you think elected officials are not?
Re: (Score:2)
There are reasons to question the "delegation" of law making being removed from congress, mostly along the lines that there's a limit to the amount of agreements that such a large and incompetent body can handle on their own. I'd say that rationale really doesn't work when the subject of the rules is around containing natural or government enforced monopolies, of which network infrastructure is a definite member.
Lobbyists are a huge problem, but arguably it's just as bad in congress. Look at some of the c
Previous condo owner. (Score:2)
Condos and Co-Ops? (Score:2)
How does this work in Condos; is the association allowed to make these types of agreements now? We only got cable upgrades 5 years ago by going exclusive, and now with the expiration of that contract we got the phone company to put in GPON. I don’t like the agreements, as we don’t need TV service and we end up paying extra for it, but it is included in the HOA fees.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a firm connection between the "pay extra" required part, and the "cable upgrade" part.
I'm all in favor of companies being able to compete, but I think in return the competitors need to be required to offer services to ALL customers within the service area without extra setup charge, not just pick and choose the easy ones because they don't want to trench through asphalt or whatever to install new connections. Unfortunately not even the "big boys" want to lay out five-figures to do connection
3rd wold country (Score:2)
Mus suck to live ina. 3rd world country, run by corporate cleptocrats :P
Cool (Score:2)
Competition is good (Score:1)
ATT stops this already. (Score:2)
Even after we agree to give them two pairs out of the cat 5 they still couldn't stand the idea that the management company were going to give every tenant in the complex a
Net Nuetrality and Humanity bans the FCC (Score:2)
If they (FCC) can't get that one right, then the rest of what they do is pissing in the wind. Corporate puppetry and lobby payola pimps....
One nitpick (Score:2)
I just have to say that, in general, I agree with this. I do have a bit of an issue with: "... we can do more to pry open the door for providers ..." I know it's a minor point, but you see this all the time from government officials an politicians, how their focus is heavily on corporations and their needs and less on people.