Home » Broadband "Shortage" »Competition »Consumer News »Editorial & Site News »Public Policy & Gov't » Currently Reading:

Republican FCC Overrides San Francisco Pro-Competition Wiring Ordinance

It’s a good day to be AT&T or Comcast in San Francisco. The Republican majority on the FCC today voted to protect their monopoly control of existing building wiring, claiming it would inspire competitors to wire buildings separately..

In a 3-2 Republican majority vote, the FCC today decided to pre-empt a San Francisco city ordinance that required multi-dwelling apartment, condo, and office space owners to allow competing service providers to share building-owned wiring if a customer sought to change providers.

“Required sharing of in-use wiring deters broadband deployment, undercuts the Commission’s rules regarding control of cable wiring in residential [multi-dwelling units], and threatens the Commission’s framework to protect the technical integrity of cable systems for the benefit of viewers,” according a news release issued by the FCC.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was joined by the two other Republicans on the Commission to block the San Francisco ordinance, which will allow dominant cable and phone companies like AT&T and Comcast to continue reserving exclusive use of building wiring, forcing would-be competitors to place costly redundant wiring in each building before offering service.

Pai said the city’s ordinance chilled competition because it encouraged competitors to re-use existing wiring instead of providing their own. That could harm the business plans of incumbent monopoly providers that depend on deterring or locking out would-be competitors by prohibiting them from using existing building wiring to reach customers. Pai called the ordinance an “outlier” and declared the city went beyond its legal authority by allowing a competitor to re-use building-owned wiring used by one provider to switch a customer to another. Pai added he had no objection to sharing unused wiring.

“By taking steps to ensure competitive access for broadband providers to [multi-dwelling homes and shared offices] while at the same time cracking down on local laws that go beyond the bounds of federal rules, our decision can help bring affordable and reliable broadband to more consumers,” echoed Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

But critics contend the FCC’s decision to disallow required shared use of wiring will likely deter new competitors from entering existing buildings, because of the cost of installing redundant wiring. Others object to the FCC regulating the use of wiring owned and installed independently by building owners, not telecom companies. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat who voted against the pre-emption, was unimpressed.

“We stop efforts in California designed to encourage competition in multi-tenant environments,” Rosenworcel told her fellow commissioners. “Specifically, we say to the city of San Francisco—where more than half of the population rents their housing, often in multi-tenant units—that they cannot encourage broadband competition. This is crazy.”

The FCC press release trumpeting the Republican majority vote to prohibit the shared use of existing building wiring was sympathetic to incumbent telecom giants AT&T and Comcast, which now dominate as service providers in multi-tenant buildings:

Nearly 30% of the U.S. population lives in condominiums and apartments, and millions more work in office buildings. The FCC must address the needs of those living and working in these buildings to close the digital divide for all Americans. However, broadband deployment in [multi-tenant buildings or ‘MTEs’] poses unique challenges. To provide service, broadband providers must have access to potential customers in the building. But when broadband providers know that they will have to share the communications facilities that they deploy with their competitors, they are less likely to invest in deployment in the first place. For decades, Congress and the FCC have encouraged facilities-based competition by broadly promoting access to customers and infrastructure—including MTEs and their tenants—while avoiding overly burdensome sharing mandates that reduce incentives to invest.

Currently there are 2 comments on this Article:

  1. Dave says:

    I’m confused. I thought regulating broadband was now the responsibility of the FTC, since the FCC gave it up when they repealed net neutrality.

  2. L. Nova says:

    So FCC and the Trumpsters panic because SF tries to actually foster competition? Of course, we know that competition is only good if it doesn’t inconvenience one of the large companies that make lots of donations to Republicans, because it’s government by the rich and for the rich, of the non-rich.

    SF doesn’t require than any property owner install in-building network wiring, or that sharing of individual wiring runs by ISPs be done. But if they do install it (or come into ownership of it), the SF law requires that they allow any ISP to connect to it and offer service to the tenants. As described in Sonic’s filing and others, each ISP offering service comes to a point of demarcation, and then connects to the building wiring to the tenant’s space. Essentially, it bans exclusive agreements between a landlord/building owner and a single ISP, excluding potential service by other ISPs able to reach the building. I see nothing wrong with that, and nothing that would justify intervention by the FCC – SF is essentially banning an abusive business practice by landlords which is none of FCC’s business. If it spreads to other cities, that’s a Good Thing!







Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Dona Pruitt: I am appalled at Comcast for doing this to it's customers, especially all of the older customers. I have been with Comcast since 2005. All of you are ...
  • Willie C Branagan: iI am continually repulsed by the fact that (WEAK) New York State's Attorney General keeps providing Spectrum with extensions. They are not going to ...
  • Damien Thomas: I disagree...I recently moved back here to Rochester (my hometown) from portland Oregon- my first time out west- and they have comcast which has Xfini...
  • Nona: I would like to lodge a complaint against Spectrum Assist in North Carolina. I called on July 1, 2019 and had my sister approved based on a flier th...
  • Charles Nemitz: I ordered spectrum internet online and was given a price. My first bill had a 9.99 one time charge for self install. I pay you to self install? Somebo...
  • Paul Houle: Funny but I noticed that FTR was doing some work on the lines between my house and the CO. When I took a closer look I saw that they ran a fiber opti...
  • Phillip Dampier: I would definitely suggest people who do not like this change call, complain, and threaten to cancel Comcast unless they offer you a better deal. This...
  • Amy: It's such a scam. According to Comcast data we were using 1.5TB month, Even though we have unlimited phones through Verizon. I refused to pay and now...
  • Renee Myers: Grandfathereing people out of Cinemax is not right at all. Reduce my bill, dont give me a garbage channel that has anything worth watching!...
  • Lauren: Why is it that I got cable/internet through frontier for $90/month, and it ends up being over $180-200 a month. When I finally called they said they w...
  • David: Has anyone looked into filing a class action lawsuit since we contracted for Cinemax and they’ve taken it away without any financial adjustment....
  • Rickon Stark: Hitz is a glorified Encore. We are getting screwed because Comcast it's in a pissing contest with ATT...

Your Account: