Rejecting opposition from the cable and real estate industries, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that aims to increase broadband competition in apartment buildings.
The new law taking effect on January 1 says landlords must let tenants “opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party Internet service provider, such as through a bulk-billing arrangement, to provide service for wired Internet, cellular, or satellite service that is offered in connection with the tenancy.” It was approved by the state Assembly in a 75–0 vote in April, and by the Senate in a 30–7 vote last month.
“This is kind of like a first step in trying to give this industry an opportunity to just treat people fairly,” Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democratic lawmaker who authored the bill, told Ars last month. “It’s not super restrictive. We are not banning bulk billing. We’re not even limiting how much money the people can make. What we’re saying here with this bill is that if a tenant wants to opt out of the arrangement, they should be allowed to opt out.”
Ransom said lobby groups for Internet providers and real estate companies were “working really hard” to defeat the bill. The California Broadband & Video Association, which represents cable companies, called it “an anti-affordability bill masked as consumer protection.”
Complaining that property owners would have “to provide a refund to tenants who decline the Internet service provided through the building’s contract with a specific Internet service provider,” the cable group said the law “undermines the basis of the cost savings and will lead to bulk billing being phased out.”
State law fills gap in federal rules
Ransom argued that the bill would boost competition and said that “some of our support came from some of the smaller Internet service providers.”
telestrial on October 19th, 2025 at 15:10 UTC »
I was living in an apartment, having chosen to use AT&T fiber, when the rental company let us all know about this fantastic agreement they'd struck with Comcast. Everyone was going to benefit! From now on, Comcast internet would be "included" (forced) on everyone's bill--not an option. No discussion. Never asked any of the tenants for their opinions. Just sent out a notice saying it was great for everyone. I'd go from paying $60 for 1 GB up and down to 300MB at $40. And that $40 was only if I committed to a year and they would never pro-rate it. In other words, if I left the apartment, I'd have to pay that Comcast bill for the rest of the year. I could of course transfer it but that would be subject to upcharges, etc, depending on where I moved.
I sent out a few emails--community manager, sales and operations at the rental management company. All of these were replied to with almost the exact same form letter language about creating the best value for their customers. Etc etc etc. Bullshit, basically.
I had already renewed my lease before this but put in my required two months move notice and told them that if they charged me for the Internet I'd take them to small claims court. They essentially changed my lease agreement without notice. They folded and let me out.
After I moved out, I left a matter of fact review on all the big rental website/google/etc. Nothing rude. Just laid out the economics of it.
A few weeks later, the CEO of the rental management company reached out to me and begged me to take the reviews down and I did not. They're still there today racking up "I found this helpful"s.
These mass internet agreements are so completely scummy and anti-competitive.
pickledeggmanwalrus on October 19th, 2025 at 14:29 UTC »
The same ISPs that have been stealing tax dollars for decades? Fuck em
LupusDeusMagnus on October 19th, 2025 at 14:15 UTC »
I’m not sure how American law works, but that sounds like it has to be illegal . Tying arrangements on economic rent, signs of a deeply unwell society.