Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet United States

New Proposal Could Ban Landlords From Charging for Cable and Internet in Bulk (theverge.com) 64

Posted by msmash from the about-time dept.
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a proposal to bar landlords from charging tenants in bulk for cable, internet, and satellite services, offering them more choice in the kinds of services they need. From a report: The agency is circulating a proposed rule to ban the practice of "bulk billing," the White House announced in a press release ahead of President Joe Biden's meeting with his Competition Council on Tuesday.

It's part of a broader effort to promote policies that will lower costs for Americans, as Biden is trying to appeal to voters focused on the economy as he seeks reelection later this year. That theme of lowering costs will resurface in Biden's State of the Union address on Thursday, National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard told reporters on a call Monday. Bulk billing restricts consumers' choices by limiting the prices and levels of cable and internet service available to them, the White House said in the press release. The new proposal will also target other "exclusive arrangements" between landlords and service providers like exclusive wiring and marketing arrangements or revenue sharing agreements, the White House said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Proposal Could Ban Landlords From Charging for Cable and Internet in Bulk More

New Proposal Could Ban Landlords From Charging for Cable and Internet in Bulk

Comments Filter:

  • at the very lest ban forced TV and ban hardware rent yes that means Comcast can't change you more for unlimited when you have your own hardware. If the XI package with unlimited and hardware is $15 then unlimited can cost no more then half of that with your own hardware.

    • Prediction: rental properties will not come with such services. Tenants will not be allowed to run their own cabling or install sat dishes either.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kiaser Zohsay ( 20134 )

        Prediction: rental properties will not come with such services. Tenants will not be allowed to run their own cabling or install sat dishes either.

        Slumlords gonna slum.

        • So, if you own a building would you be cool with a tenant running cable through walls and making penetrations? Many older buildings don't have home runs to a wiring closet. It will be interesting to see if such a regulation conflicts with the takings clause because the government is limiting the use of private property.

          If we such a regulation gets promulgated (asserting the concept that having a choice in cable provider is in the public interest over private property rights), the next logical step would b

          • The tenant? No. The qualified company installer? Yes.
            • The previous poster framed the statement as Tenants will not be allowed to run their own cabling.

              But even with a qualified company installer, should a property owner be required to allow any cable TV provider to install cabling? When a penetration is not sealed correctly, work is not performed to code, or it is just unsightly (loose cables), what recourse does the property owner have? The contract was between the tenant and the cable company, so it is going to be more complicated (and expensive) because

          • the next logical step would be to prohibit cable franchise rights that allows municipalities to award monopolies.

            That should have been done 20 years ago. Back in the 70s-90s, it made sense. Cable companies were given monopolies to incentivize them stringing cable all over the place so they could recoup their expenses. They have made back their money. Now, they're just milking the people.

            LK

      • Cable is the new phone, you can't deny people the right to install a phone line and telcos are shutting down their POTS plants as fast as they can. Cellular doesn't serve everyone, so cable it is.

        At our last CERT meeting I was talking to a local HAM about building a mesh network for the town I live in (Rio Dell, CA) which is small enough to cover with a pretty small number of nodes. The purpose is to build an alternate communications system which will be useful in a disaster and not require any additional applications (since if the internet links are down, only Android users will be able to add software to their phones) and also not require the cost of building a cellular network. Ideally phones would also be able to participate in the mesh, that will of course require additional software on the devices.

        • Cable is the new phone, you can't deny people the right

          This is the USA, there is no right to install anything, and even if there was, it would be forfit anyway due to contracts trumping all other rights.

          • This is the USA, there is no right to install anything

            https://www.justia.com/real-es... [justia.com]
            and in civilized states...
            https://americanlandlord.com/c... [americanlandlord.com]

            • The "rights" you have as a rental tenant vary GREATLY from state to state and at times, city to city.

              I've lived in places where you have practically NO rights, and one of them was getting your deposit back....in some places, you just don't ever get it back even if you do everything right.

              Installing stuff? Nope...not unless you have a nice landlord, etc....

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Joviex ( 976416 )

                The "rights" you have as a rental tenant vary GREATLY from state to state and at times, city to city.

                These are FEDERAL rights. You understand that if you dont ASSERT your RIGHTS then of course you will be run over?

                • The only "Federal" rights you have are: non-discrimination based on race, marital status,etc.;
                  and if you are in the military, you can cancel your lease upon new orders, without penalty.
                  Everything else is state or local.

              • Pretty sure that we already have protections for satellite rule. Look up the OTARD rule.

                rules that impair a personâ(TM)s ability to install, maintain, or use a satellite dish are prohibited

                • OTARD----applies to condo associations and homeowners associations from prohibition of installing antennae etc. A landlord who owns the structure can restrict a company from drilling holes in the roof to slap a receiving antenna on it.
                  • i meant to edit not post... ", and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. " So this rule still precludes many rental structures and I have legally stopped the install of the antenna on my property roofs. The tenant must be willing to have the dish placed on a pole/post not on the housing unit.

        • Cable is the new phone, you can't deny people the right to install a phone line and telcos are shutting down their POTS plants as fast as they can. [/quote]Yes you can. I rented a place that not only had no phone service, it had no running water or sewer service of any kind either (other than the portapotty they place out front).

          That was before I had a cell phone too.

          And if you're curious that was in 1996....and it was inside city limits too.

          • With the *possible* gray area of renting a damaged house/apartment in a city that was recently destroyed by a hurricane, I can't think of anywhere in the US where a rental unit with only a porta-john would be legal.

            And even post-hurricane, it would technically still be illegal, just unenforced for a few weeks (2-3 months, *absolute* max) because rigid enforcement would instantly depopulate a destroyed city of its entire low-wage workforce (who'd be priced out of anything left within an hour drive) & lea

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dbialac ( 320955 )
        Federal law requires that tenants be allowed to. Years ago Coral Springs, FL tried to ban it and lost in court. Regarding Biden's proposal, he's had just over 3 years to get the FCC to bring it forward. Why the delay?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HBI ( 10338492 )

          Best part is that the implementation will most probably lag behind the election. Making this ...the next thing to useless for him.

        • Re:at the very lest ban forced TV and ban hardware (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2024 @09:44AM (#64291068)

          Regarding Biden's proposal, he's had just over 3 years to get the FCC to bring it forward. Why the delay?

          The fifth FCC seat was vacant until just a few months ago due to Congress stalling Biden’s previous nomination, so he had no ability to push anything through until now.

        • They were too busy banning mechanical timers in washing machines.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        There has been a regulation in place requiring landlords to allow dish installations for decades, and the FCC has always enforced it. Friend of mine ran into that a long time ago, and and FCC good called the landlord and read him the riot act, and the dish was installed without incident a few days later.

  • I've lived in several apartment buildings and have never experienced or heard of bulk cable pricing. However, I've lived in plenty of places where I wasn't able to get decent cable or internet because some other provider had exclusive distribution rights to the area and had shitty channel selection and horrendously slow internet.

    • My mother is in a retirement community, they all share common cable tv/internet service - the community owns the wiring, the providers have to bid for the service every few years, it keeps costs down for them. Premium cable channels are available per unit, and I suspect, but never looked, internet upgrades are likely available.

    • Back in the 80s in the midwest... it wasn't uncommon for apartments to come with basic cable TV in all apartments included as part of the rent.

      I haven't seen anything like that since coming to California. I have seen apartment complexes in the late 00s that had sitewide internet (wired and wireless) included as part of the rent (login via assigned U/P per unit -firewalled and rate limited: nothing like modern gig+ bandwidth, but enough to game/surf.) No clue if anyone is doing that now, but it was a perk

    • I'll admit, I wonder if this is still going on...

      Back in the mid-1990s, I had an apartment where they had their own antenna/satellite dish. So you plugged your TV into the antenna and got broadcast TV. Give the landlord an extra $20 and you got Showtime & The Movie Channel via the satellite dish.

  • until a few months ago when a friend moved into one of those office buildings converted to apartments. Television and internet are "included" for the price of $150 a month. When she inquired if she could pursue more inexpensive options she was told that she couldn't as Verizon has an exclusive lease to the entire building.

    Some malarkey, that is

    • Those are questions you ask before signing the lease. Typically they are outlined in the lease. So umm, did she not read the lease or something?

      • When presented with the lease she inquired if she could pursue more inexpensive options and she was told that she couldn't as Verizon has an exclusive lease to the entire building.

        Why do I feel like I've typed that before?

        • So she knowingly signed the lease. If she didn't like that arrangement, why didn't she find other housing? That's what I'm getting at.

          • Perhaps there's people who tear up leases over cable TV in Iowa or somewhere, but in NY? Uh... I guess it could happen.

            I've also heard of people absolutely convinced they were buying a bridge downtown. Again, I suppose it could happen

            If you're willing to subject yourself to three or four more months of a soul poisoning grind for basic housing over television, you're obviously bigger than most of us.

  • At the very minimum: (Score:3)

    by fropenn ( 1116699 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2024 @10:58AM (#64291284)
    they should be forced to list the *actual* amount you have to pay each month to live there. It's no different than airline flights or concert tickets - to be an informed consumer you need to know the all-in price.

    I once lived in a large apartment building (well, large for me, 5 floors, 20 units per floor) that provided over the air TV to each unit for free. I think they had a sizable antenna and some signal boosters throughout the building. It was a nice feature to not have to have another bill to pay each month.
  • I can't see who benefits from this (I mean ya the consumer, but no one gives a **** about them), so if someone can explain who is making money off changing this since I am not sure who is pushing for it and why.
    There is zero chance that there is a sudden interest in pro consumer options or they would push the following:
    Price advertised is the price you pay (none of this added fees after you click on the advertised price)
    Loser pays in consumer laws (There are so many lawyers fighting this as they lose

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      Also, if the device stops working because of some sort of cloud service, the manufacturer must provide a pro-rated refund for the difference between when the product would likely have failed due to age and how long it actually laster before being shut down. The lifespan estimate must assume a high quality of design and construction unless the manufacture prominently advertised the quality as "utter shite" in those words.

  • Many of the legal issues in early attempts such as discussed here: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bur... [fcc.gov] will apply to this.

    Many large apartment complexes farmed out the cable wiring to a 3rd party which continues to own the wires and provides maintenance for this part of the building's infrastructure. These 3rd parties in turn have long-term contracts with the service provider and the building owner. Telling the building owner they have to split out the cost of the digital services will not immediately

  • There are many HOA's that force residents to take cable and/or internet service from an "approved" provider and the amount is included in the HOA's mandatory fees. They don't block you from receiving service from a different provider, but you still have to pay for the HOA-approved service even if you don't use it. So competing services find it very hard to gain a foothold because people will just use the service they are already forced to pay for. Often these providers that have sweetheart deals with the

    • Yeah. And I have a 150 foot tall antenna mast that I'll be putting up to recieve my preferred service. Don't like its appearance? The FCC and I will see you in court.

    • I remember that a few of these deals the HOA and/or homeowners have successfully broken on various points. Things like a tremendously back-loaded contract that was agreed on by the HOA when the HOA was still controlled by the builder, but was an utterly stupid bargain for the homeowners/HOA once the homeowners took over. Or the provider got so cheap that they violated even the minimum standards in the contract. Etc...

    • HOA are made up of homeowners. If you are the homeowner, complain to yourself or actually participate in it. The first mistake you can make is enter a community or that has a HOA. If you live in a condo complex, you have no option but have an HOA. If you are a renter of landlord that is apart of the HOA, complain to the landlord or simply leave, you have a choice.

      • The first problem is owning a condo...
        You open yourself to almost unlimited, undisclosed liability.
        Maybe if you are a top-of-your-class attorney.
        Or you have so little in assets as to be judgement proof.
        Or you have so much money you can afford top-of-the-class attorneys.
        Otherwise...legally dangerous.

    • I'll be honest, when I saw the article I have the opposite reaction.

      I live in a neighborhood where the HOA has a bulk agreement for cable and Internet. Originally when I moved in, they were with a different cable company. They changed companies 4 or 5 years later and got a better deal. More recently, they decided to pick up Internet and make it a part of the bulk agreement. The year they did that my HOA dues went up about $50 per quarter. However, I was paying about $50 a month for that Internet serv

  • Cable AND internet? Are you out of your mind? You never heard of "triple play", that's like 20 years old. You cannot detach cable or telephone from "the internet" it's INTERNET DATA, all in the same fiber LOL. TV is served over IP! You can watch every TV channel on your freaking phone! What, you never heard of VOIP either? There is no analog phone network anymore. Telecoms pulled out and sold the copper out of the ground years ago, it was worth a lot of money. No analog radio. And certainly no cable compan

  • Funny thing about this. Comcast will bend itself over backward to not let you cancel its service. They won't let you cancel any other way than by phone. And whatever reason you give, they will have a script for it. Too expensive? They'll lower your rate back to its introductory price for six months. Unreliable service? No problem, they'll fix it. Not fast enough? They'll give you a menu of speeds they can increase you to, without even rolling a truck to service the property. You're moving to a different sta

Slashdot Top Deals

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Close