It’s inexcusable that it took the FCC literally the better part of a generation to outlaw these kinds of practices to help boost building-by-building competition — and yet still didn’t finish the job. But it’s fairly representative of a U.S. regulatory apparatus that’s consistently handcuffed, under-funded, and lobbied into apathy by regional monopolies that very much prefer the profitable, broken status quo.
Change is hard to come by.
It’s inexcusable that it took the FCC literally the better part of a generation to outlaw these kinds of practices to help boost building-by-building competition — and yet still didn’t finish the job. But it’s fairly representative of a U.S. regulatory apparatus that’s consistently handcuffed, under-funded, and lobbied into apathy by regional monopolies that very much prefer the profitable, broken status quo.
Change is hard to come by.
Broadband Monopolies Still Exist Because The FCC Has Been Lobbied Into Fecklessness
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
ISPs for years have struck cozy deals with landlords effectively elbowing out competitors and allowing them to create building-by-building broadband monopolies. That stifled competition in turn results in higher costs for access to an essential utility. And while the FCC passed rules in 2007 trying to ban this, the rules were so full of loopholes as to be effectively useless.
Susan Crawford wrote pretty much the definitive story on this at Wired a while back, noting that the original rules were so terrible, ISPs and landlords could easily tap dance around them by simply calling what they’re doing… something else:
“…The Commission has been completely out-maneuvered by the incumbents. Sure, a landlord can’t enter into an exclusive agreement granting just one ISP the right to provide Internet access service to an MDU, but a landlord can refuse to sign agreements with anyone other than Big Company X, in exchange for payments labeled in any one of a zillion ways. Exclusivity by any other name still feels just as abusive.”
So after being nagged about this for fifteen years (!), last year the Biden FCC finally updated the rules. But the updated language still didn’t actually fix the problem. In part because the rule revisions only applied to cable and phone companies, not any of the numerous broadband-only fiber, fixed-wireless, or Wi-Fi ISPs that cut exclusivity deals directly with landlords to avoid having to compete . . .
Consumers stuck under one of these arrangements are routinely annoyed by the fact they have no options. And while the FCC sometimes talks a good game about cracking down on this problem, its solutions routinely arrive soggy and half cooked a decade after the fact.
The unpopular repeal of net neutrality further constrained the FCC’s authority over these broadband-only providers. And because telecom monopolies and the GOP worked hand in hand to kill the FCC nomination of Gigi Sohn, the agency also lacks a voting majority to implement competent reform even if it wanted to (note: it routinely doesn’t actually want to).
It’s yet another issue where corruption and dysfunction derails progress, despite the fact that doing the right thing has pretty broad, bipartisan support (Texas just introduced a state law attempting to address the issue). The FCC knows it’s a problem and knows the solution, but has taken the sort of “wait and see” approach preferred by feckless career politicians terrified of upsetting large companies:
The FCC is aware of this issue. In 2022, when it last updated its rules, it noted that, “Commenters argue we should subject broadband-only providers to our rules governing MTE access, citing the potential benefits of doing so and the potential harms that could result from regulatory asymmetry if we did not.” Choosing to “proceed incrementally,” the Commission stated that it will “continue to monitor competition in MTEs to determine whether we should alter the scope of our rules to cover other providers … in response to any new information that comes to light.”
In other words, the FCC might get around to further tightening the rules another fifteen years down the road.
It’s inexcusable that it took the FCC literally the better part of a generation to outlaw these kinds of practices to help boost building-by-building competition — and yet still didn’t finish the job. But it’s fairly representative of a U.S. regulatory apparatus that’s consistently handcuffed, under-funded, and lobbied into apathy by regional monopolies that very much prefer the profitable, broken status quo.
Change is hard to come by.
You just saw what happened to a genuine reformer with a backbone who tried to nab an appointment to the FCC (Sohn). As a result, the top media and telecom regulator is routinely staffed with career politicians too worried about their post-agency political posts or think tank gigs to consistently ruffle feathers and do the right thing, even when the path forward is obvious and popular.
Filed Under: apartment monopolies, broadband competition, exclusive landlord contracts, fcc, high speed internet, telecom
- Whoops: Congress Failed To Actually Fund Efforts To "Rip And Replace" Chinese Telecom Gear From U.S. Networks
- Montana Tweaks Law, But Still Bans Communities From Building Better, Faster Broadband Networks
- Senators: Gosh, Maybe We Should Accurately Map Broadband Before Deploying $50 Billion In Telecom Subsidies?
- Google Fiber Returns From The Dead To Deliver Actual Broadband Competition To Iowa
- Canada Follows U.S. Lead On Mindless Consolidation With Rogers, Shaw Merger Approval
RELATED CONTENT ON THIS BLOG
12 April 2017
How Digital Can We Get Here In Mesa?
Digital Southwest Here in MesaTo watch the full event live, go to: https://livestream.com/
Source: Broadband Breakfast
More information >
http://nextcenturycities.org/event/digital-southwest/
Participants will hear from mayors, other city officials, state and federal policymakers, rural and tribal representatives, as well as national broadband experts. From financing to infrastructure development to smart cities, panelists will share a wealth of practical information.
Conference: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 from 8:30 to 5pm at the Mesa Convention Center, 263 N Center Street, Mesa, AZ 85201
Welcome Reception: Monday, April 17, 2017 from 5:30 to 7pm at the Mesa Arts Center, 1 E Main St, Mesa, AZ 85201
Panel One: What’s Working– Stories of Success
Hear from elected officials and city leadership who can share stories about what is working in their communities.
Where are the gaps in broadband infrastructure in our country?
What can be done to improve access for the underserved and the unserved?
Lunch and Keynote
Breakout Session One: Models 101
What are the ways in which a counties, cities, or towns might successfully bring broadband to their communities?
What do communities need to know about pole attachments?
What are small cells and how can local leaders create a collaborative and mutually beneficial process with vendors who are seeking to deploy them?
What are the unique issues and barriers in rural and tribal lands that leave many of these areas unserved? What solutions exist that can help to improve access?
Panel Three: Broadband Financing
How are communities funding broadband expansion?
What resources exist to help local communities fund infrastructure and digital inclusion efforts?
x
Comments on “Apartment Broadband Monopolies Still Exist Because The FCC Has Been Lobbied Into Fecklessness”
This comment is new since your last visit.
The staffers at the FCC were long ago co-opted by the very companies they are supposed to regulate. Anyone who regularly does business with the FCC knows this.
This comment is new since your last visit.
Re:
….. The staffers at the FCC would be great if we just replaced them with the proper types of people.
What now actually prevents a democracy-ruled nation from doing that and why do citizens tolsdate it?
This comment is new since your last visit.
Corruption, it’s what’s for dinner.
This comment is new since your last visit.
Re:
I guess that makes as much sense as “corruption, the other white meat.”
This comment is new since your last visit.
Re: Re:
No, not racist .. just corrupt.
This comment is new since your last visit.
Re: Re: Re:
¿Por qué no los dos?
This comment is new since your last visit.
These exclusivity agreements are atrocious because the incentives are completely mis-aligned. The landlord’s concern is just about always maximizing revenue, not the service provided by the ISP.
If the ISP doesn’t provide good service it isn’t the landlord’s problem as long as the property stays filled.
In fact, it is the worst ISPs that have the highest incentive to enter into these contracts since they cannot compete otherwise.