States Should Refrain from Bulk Billing Bans

Providing broadband service at the lowest price to the largest possible number of Americans should be a bipartisan effort, and laws or regulations that impede that objective should be avoided.

In one of his first decisions as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr withdrew a March 5, 2024, notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM) that would have made it more difficult to achieve that objective by eliminating bulk billing agreements to provide broadband service to multi-tenant building like apartments, condominiums, and public housing.  In his January 24, 2025, statement, Chairman Carr noted that such “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.”

Chairman Carr was likely referring to the April 19, 2024, letter from the No Home Left Offline Coalition, which urged the FCC not to restrict bulk billing by noting the “crucial role” that bulk billing arrangement have played in providing affordable access to broadband, and that restricting the agreements would exacerbate “disparities in digital access.”  Citizens Against Government Waste also raised concerns about the rulemaking.

Bulk billing allows property owners to negotiate discounted rates by requesting competitive bids from service providers and offer broadband and cable services as part of a tenant’s rent or homeowner association dues.  Renters typically get faster service at lower rates than they would if they purchased the same plans individually.

While the decision to withdraw the NRPM should have ended any discussion of the issue, the California legislature is on the precipice passing AB 1414, which would require a landlord, an agent, or an association to offer every tenant an opt-out from the building’s bulk billing plan.

While an opt-out may sound pro-consumer, it eliminates the ability to negotiate lower rates.  It could also cost associations and building owners more money if the property must be modified to accommodate varied services.  By raising the average cost of internet service, AB 1414 would disproportionately harm low-income tenants, seniors on fixed incomes, and college students in multi-unit housing.  Legislators would also be ignoring the opposition to the FCC’s NRPM by organizations like the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, the National Affordable Housing Management Association, the National Multifamily Housing Council, and Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future.

Lawmakers still have an opportunity to stop AB 1414, which is not only solving a problem that does not exist but also hurting the very people it claims to help.  If they fail to vote it down, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) must veto this legislation.