### FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Abandons Plan to Ban Bulk Billing Arrangements in Rental Properties
In a notable policy reversal, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr has chosen to discard a proposal aimed at prohibiting bulk billing agreements in multi-tenant residences. Such agreements typically mandate that tenants purchase Internet services from a designated provider, regardless of their preference for an alternative service or company. This decision has ignited a vigorous discussion among consumer advocacy organizations, housing industry representatives, and Internet service providers (ISPs) regarding the equilibrium among affordability, consumer freedom, and competition in the broadband industry.
—
### **What Are Bulk Billing Agreements?**
Bulk billing agreements are pacts made between landlords and ISPs where the provider delivers services to all tenants within a building, often at a reduced price. Tenants are charged a prorated portion of the total expense, either directly from the ISP or via their landlord. While these agreements are promoted as a means to deliver cost-effective Internet access, detractors contend that they frequently restrict consumer options and hinder competition by deterring other providers from entering the building.
Presently, FCC regulations prohibit bulk billing only when exclusive access agreements grant a single provider the exclusive privilege to serve a building. Nevertheless, tenants in properties with bulk billing agreements often find themselves with few viable alternatives, as the expense of installing competing services in such settings can be excessively high.
—
### **The Proposal That Was Abandoned**
In March 2024, then-FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel advocated for a rule that would permit bulk billing agreements to persist only if tenants were allowed the option to opt out. The intent was to bolster competition within multi-tenant environments (MTEs) by making it more appealing for alternative providers to enter these markets. Rosenworcel insisted that the proposal would reduce costs and enhance broadband choices for tenants, especially those residing in apartments, condominiums, and public housing.
“Too frequently, tenants in these households face high prices with limited Internet or other service options,” Rosenworcel’s office remarked at the time. The initiative aimed to tackle these challenges by guaranteeing that tenants could select providers that catered to their needs, including those offering low-income plans or government-subsidized programs like Lifeline.
Despite possessing a 3–2 Democratic majority at that time, the FCC did not bring the proposal to a definitive vote, leaving it unresolved until Carr’s recent choice to retract it completely.
—
### **Industry Backing for Bulk Billing**
Housing industry associations and ISPs have applauded Carr’s decision, asserting that bulk billing agreements offer considerable advantages to tenants. In a joint announcement, the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), National Apartment Association (NAA), and Real Estate Technology and Transformation Center (RETTC) commended the decision, claiming that bulk billing agreements often secure high-speed Internet for renters at prices as much as 50% lower than standard retail rates. They also noted that these agreements eliminate obstacles such as credit evaluations, security deposits, and installation charges, enhancing broadband accessibility for low-income tenants and seniors.
“Bulk billing agreements have made high-speed Internet more reachable and affordable for millions of Americans,” stated NMHC President Sharon Wilson Géno.
ISPs such as Comcast, Charter, and Cox also opposed Rosenworcel’s proposal, arguing that it would disrupt existing agreements and potentially increase costs for tenants. They maintained that the proposal would discourage landlords from entering into bulk arrangements, ultimately diminishing the availability of economical broadband in multi-tenant buildings.
—
### **Reactions from Consumer Advocacy Groups**
Conversely, consumer advocacy organizations have voiced their dissatisfaction with Carr’s decision, arguing that bulk billing agreements frequently uphold in-building monopolies at the detriment of tenant choice. Public Knowledge, along with 30 additional advocacy groups, implored the FCC to advance Rosenworcel’s proposal, asserting that it would offer tenants a crucial option to escape from high-cost or subpar Internet services.
“Bulk billing agreements sacrifice consumer choice to sustain in-building monopolies,” the groups stated in a correspondence to the FCC. They contended that an opt-out option would enable tenants to pursue better or more affordable services, particularly for those qualified for low-income broadband plans.
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, criticized the decision, asserting, “The arguments favoring bulk billing were disingenuous or exaggerated. The MTE access regulations enjoy widespread, bipartisan support, as well as considerable industry backing.” He noted that the decision undermines efforts to guarantee fair competition and consumer choice in the broadband sector.
—
### **The Broader Consequences**
Carr’s choice to abandon the bulk billing proposal signifies a broader transformation in the FCC’s regulatory stance under his administration. In a declaration, Carr characterized the proposal as a case of “regulatory overreach” that would have escalated Internet costs for apartment residents by as much as 50%. He also indicated intentions to roll back other regulations established during the Biden administration.
