California Bill Lets Renters Escape Exclusive Deals Between ISPs and Landlords

California's legislature this week approved a bill to let renters opt out of bulk-billing arrangements that force them to pay for Internet service from a specific provider. ArsTechnica: The bill says that by January 1, a landlord must "allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party Internet service provider, such as through a bulk-billing arrangement, to provide service for wired Internet, cellular, or satellite service that is offered in connection with the tenancy." If a landlord fails to do so, the tenant "may deduct the cost of the subscription to the third-party Internet service provider from the rent," and the landlord would be prohibited from retaliating.

The bill passed the state Senate in a 30-7 vote on Wednesday but needs Gov. Gavin Newsom's signature to become law. It was approved by the state Assembly in a 75-0 vote in April. Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democratic lawmaker who authored the bill, told Ars today that lobby groups for Internet providers and real estate companies have been "working really hard" to defeat it. But she expects Newsom will approve. "I strongly believe that the governor is going to look at what this bill provides as far as protections for tenants and sign it into law," Ransom said in a phone interview.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

About that... https://www.houstonchronicle.c... [houstonchronicle.com]

Re:

[iAmWaySmarterThanYou]

Texas: people are taxed for the goods they buy which results in people having control of their tax burden. Eg/; want to pay less tax, buy a cheaper car. And the absolute value of the taxes paid by the rich are higher because they will buy that Mercedes instead of the Civic.

California: people are taxed for everything including having a huge sales tax. So they pay for everything they buy, they pay for working, they pay and pay and pay.

The percentages are irrelevant and just a way to lie with statistics. S

Re:

[nadass]

Someone earning 600K+ is paying more in taxes than someone earning 30k in both states.

Your argument is rather shallow. There are trillion-dollar corporations that nominally pay less in corporate taxes than blue-collar workers earning $30K per year -- so reducing the argument to high-income earners necessarily pay more in taxes than lower-income earners is objectively false.

Finance-savvy higher-income earners often also hire personal finance advisors/managers and adopt money-management techniques which reverse their total tax burdens on an annualized basis; lower-income earners often cannot

Re:

[newcastlejon]

Although some mandatory proportional income taxes (like social security withholdings from paychecks) are unavoidable in and of themselves,

Up to a point. A person earning $10 million p.a. pays no more to social security than someone who only earns $168k p.a.

Re:

[nadass]

Although some mandatory proportional income taxes (like social security withholdings from paychecks) are unavoidable in and of themselves,

Up to a point. A person earning $10 million p.a. pays no more to social security than someone who only earns $168k p.a.

A person earning $10MM on standard payroll would be subjected to these payroll taxes. THIS distinction is the whole point -- Should a worker (or CEO) take in only a $1 Salary, then they are subject to those payroll withholdings/burdens on that standard payroll amount.

Money-savvy executives gladly accept a $1 salary because the remainder of their overall compensation package is awarded as semi-regulated financial instruments potentially subject to capital gains taxes, or awarded in any other manner which s

Re:

[usedtobestine]

Corporations don't pay taxes, its passed straightthrough to you, their customer.

Re:

[suutar]

I can see that point of view but using that logic my employer pays my taxes, so...

Re:

[Smonster]

Whether someone is pay more or less total taxes are irrelevant to someone’s lived experience. The percentage someone’s total income someone pays is far more relevant. High consumption taxes with low capital gains, low real estate, and flat income taxes results in the poor paying much more of their income in taxes every month. Why? Because they spend all the money the make every month where the wealthy likely does not. And everything they buy is taxed.

More total taxes paid matters to the gover

Re:

[packrat0x]

Smells like manure.
Try state spending per capita. See, taxes like to be sneaky, while the spending part is much better documented.

Total State Expenditures per Capita [kff.org]

I tried to make this pretty, but the lameness filter said no.

Texas 4462 Montana 9257
Florida 5199 New Jersey 9292
Nevada 5690 Maine 9295
North Carolina 5825 Washington 9303
New Hampshire 5927 Louisiana 9376
Missouri 6149 Minnesota 9410
Idaho 6331 Illinois 9585
C

Re:

[larryjoe]

Smells like manure.
Try state spending per capita.

No, this sure not seem absurd at all. California spends more on an absolute and per capita basis and also collect more in taxes. Where does that money come from?

A lot comes from the top income earners. California's top 1% pay 9.3% more. They also earn more, a minimum of $714,400 in California compared to $617,900 in Texas. And there are more top 1%, about 40,000 more in California.

So this is consistent with the Californian approach to soak the rich and the Texan approach to soak the poor and middle class.

Re:

[bn-7bc]

Hmm DC an Alaska seams to spend a lot. Does DCs spending include everything spent on protecting the Whitehouse and Congress? As for Alaska i suspect that providing basic infrastructure to a small pop that might not be all that centralized might skews the numbers quite a bit

Re:

[bn-7bc]

well "evry little helps" as they say. And it might not always be about reducing the cost, what about not being penalized for choosing another provider that maight provide products more to your liking?

You just know....

[registrations_suck]

You just know that there is a good chance at any point in the future that California could REQUIRE landlords to provide access to internet services, either included with the rent, or at the cost of the landlord, and fine them for not providing such services. Why? Because, of course, it would be unfair to expect renters to procure internet access on their own, or endure the higher cost of individually billed service as compared to discounted whole-building access.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

You've got a double whammy there though as the landlords don't want to do it as it would require more responsibility for them and the ISPs don't want it since they probably make more money from 300 individual customers than a bulk line.

Not that it isn't a good idea, I know housing developments that do it but it'll be lobbied against pretty hard as a law.

Re:

[registrations_suck]

Oh, if landlords and isps don't want to do it, then it will definitely be forced on them at some point.

Re:

[brad0]

Exactly.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

You have odd fantasies.

Re:

[PPH]

You don't have situations where there are multiple power companies capable of serving a single building. On the other hand, it is possible in many jurisdictions to select your energy supplier and have the local power utility only act as an intermediary for meter reading, billing and local distribution maintenance.

What will most likely happen is that cable companies, fiber last mile providers, etc. will become telecommunications companies, handling the connection between customers and various Internet servi

Re:

[_merlin]

What will most likely happen is that cable companies, fiber last mile providers, etc. will become telecommunications companies, handling the connection between customers and various Internet services.

Australia requires unbundling like this. The major last mile networks serving residential properties are the government-established NBNco, TPG's WonderCom and Lightning Broadband. NBNco serves the most properties and has the widest choice of ISPs available. WonderCom cherry-picks the properties they want to

The landlords will find a way to block it

[devslash0]

They could for example allow the renter to opt out of the preselected broadband deal but say no to any new installations by not allowing to dig/drill to install new cables, under the pretext of needlessly damaging the property.

Re:

[packrat0x]

but say no to any new installations by not allowing to dig/drill to install new cables, under the pretext of needlessly damaging the property.

Close. The landlord will require strict adherence to building codes, permits, inspections, and the use of licensed installers--maximizing the cost of installation.

Re:

[pauljlucas]

Low-voltage wiring or fiber optic cabling doesn't require permits or inspections. I haven't read the text of the bill, but there might be a provision that the landlord must make reasonable allowances for independent internet installation.

Re:

[bn-7bc]

Unless ofc that fibrr happens to go thru a wall that happens to be a pare ofva firecell, rgen I would imagine ther would be afew regulations on how rgat wall is breched and what barerial you put arround the oursidebkf the cable tonfill the oart of the hole the cable does noy

Re:

[Teun]

Did you reinstall the keys all by yourself after your keyboard fell on the ground?

Re:

[bn-7bc]

Sorry my ipad hates me sometimes and my ADD is kind of distracting. Corrected re-post bellow
Unless ofc that fiber happens to go thru a wall that happens to be a part of a fire cell, then I would imagine there would be a few regulations on how that wall is breeched and what material you put around the ourside of the cable ton fill the rest of the hole the cable does not

Re:

[brad0]

Then they need to be sued.

Re:

[bn-7bc]

Agreed the curet administartion need to be escorted out and deposited at a DOC facility post haste

Does this also apply to digital cable?

[mad_dog3283]

Unless this bill also applies to digital cable, cable providers will just work around it by entering agreements with landlords that require residents to subscribe to digital cable. I saw this when I lived in Richmond VA. Almost all of the decent apartment complexes in that area are owned by three or four corporate landlords, so it's relatively easy for Comcast et al. to enter agreements that require residents to subscribe to cable TV. Internet access was not included in those agreements, so residents could