By Tracy Rosenberg

In the wake of the COVID pandemic revealing the cracks in the digital divide, the State of California made a historic investment in Internet infrastructure with the construction of a middle mile connection to enable high-speed Internet delivery all over the State. The program that encompasses the statewide middle mile network and provides grants for service branching off that network is optimistically titled “Broadband For All”.

But is it really “broadband for all” if California’s tenants and the problems they have accessing Internet service is left out of the conversation?

California’s tenants, like Internet users nationwide, suffer from a lack of choices with many households still having a very limited choice of service providers, often only one or two. And tenants often cannot even choose from these limited choices. Exclusive marketing agreements between property owners and Internet companies inform tenants they are living in a Comcast building, an AT&T building or a Spectrum building and all they can do is turn on or off the landlord-approved service.

In some cases, an alternative provider of Internet service can offer competitive or even higher speeds, more reliable service, better privacy protections and half the cost. But the tenant is told they can’t use them, is discouraged from requesting service, or their chosen provider is denied access to the building to hook them up. Sometimes when a provider tries to serve a tenant, they discover the Internet equipment will only accommodate one provider. This happens, all over the state, even though an exclusive marketing agreement is *not* an exclusive use agreement and exclusive use agreements and landlord kickbacks have been declared illegal by the Federal Communications Commission.

Two cities in Northern California have tried to solve this problem. In 2016, Interim mayor Mark Farrell proposed a “Choice of Communications Services Providers in Multiple Occupancy Buildings” ordinance and 5 years later, neighboring Oakland passed a similar ordinance to “Prohibit Owners of Multiple Occupancy Buildings From Interfering With The Choice of Communication Services Providers By Occupants”.

What these municipal Internet Choice ordinances do is establish the rights of residents in multi-unit buildings to use any authorized Internet provider they want to use and prevent property owners from constraining their choices for no good reason. This maximizes the amount of people who can access affordable and reliable broadband at home for work, school and civic engagement. It also helps to expand the local Internet marketplace so smaller and newer companies that offer competitive services can service customers. More players in the market place equals more competition equals lower prices for everyone.

In other words, Internet choice helps tenants find affordable service and helps alternative Internet providers get established and compete against incumbents with higher speeds and lower costs in an America where broadband costs more than it does in any other developed country.

Why should only San Francisco and Oakland have these laws when tenants (and homeowners) all over the State can benefit from Internet Choice? There is no good reason. Big California cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and Sacramento would all benefit from this kind of law, as well as dozens and dozens of rapidly developing suburbs and exurbs where new multi-unit housing is being built to address California’s housing crisis.

Any law is only as good as its enforcement, so do Internet Choice laws really work? Yes and no. Many property owners in San Francisco and Oakland have seen the light after being apprised of these laws, including some of the biggest rental property owners in these cities. Others have been recalcitrant.

In some cases, not wanting to give up enticements offered by the legacy providers to keep all of the units in their buildings subscribed to same provider. But people are starting to fight back.

In Oakland, alternative provider Sonic Telecom has filed suit (Sonic v. Jue Case No. 24CV081024) in an effort to provide services as requested by residents at 375 Van Buren Street and 291 Fairmount Avenue in Oakland. In San Francisco, alternative service provider Monkey Brains is also in court standing up for tenants right to choose their service.

Both companies are among the few remaining alternative ISPS who offer fast and reliable service, often at less cost, than the legacy providers. By using them, tenants can lower their living costs in expensive cities, and people who would dispense with home Internet because they think they can’t afford it, can get and stay connected. Every California city should have choices for consumers and lively competition for residents Internet dollars. Internet Choice laws can get us there.

Some state legislators know this, and we anticipate that a statewide Internet choice bill will be introduced in the State Legislature this year or in coming years. It won’t be easy to pass because the legacy providers have a powerful lobbying presence. If you’d like to express your support and give state legislators someone to listen to besides lobbyists, hit social media with the hashtags #InternetChoice and #CALeg and tell them you want a law that residents in apartments can use any Internet provider they want. No exceptions, no obstructions. Just like any other consumer product purchased on the open market.

The Internet belongs to all of us.