Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Submission Preview

Link to Story

FCC Set To Pre-empt San Francisco Broadband Infrastructure Sharing

Accepted submission by NotSanguine https://soylentnews.org/~NotSanguine/ at 2019-06-23 17:40:02 from the taking-what-they're-giving-cuz-i'm-shilling-for-a-living dept.
Techonomics

Jon Brodkin over at Ars Technica is reporting [arstechnica.com] on a scheduled vote next month [fcc.gov] (10 July 2019) at the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [wikipedia.org].

The decision would invalidate San Francisco's Article 52 [legistar.com][PDF], which requires property owner-owned cable plant to be shared by multiple ISPs.

As Brodkin reports [arstechnica.com]:

The Federal Communications Commission will vote next month on whether to preempt a San Francisco city ordinance that was designed to promote broadband competition in multi-unit buildings.

San Francisco's Article 52, approved in December 2016, lets Internet service providers use the existing wiring inside multi-unit residential and commercial properties even if the wiring is already used by another ISP that serves the building. San Francisco's Board of Supervisors and then-Mayor Ed Lee approved it in order to spur competition in multi-unit buildings where occupants often have only one option for Internet service.

The ordinance only applies when the inside wiring belongs to the property owner. Under the rule, property owners who have outfitted their buildings with Internet wiring cannot deny access to ISPs, making it harder for them to strike exclusive deals with Internet providers.
[...]
When San Francisco passed its rule, the city argued that property owners were sidestepping a federal law that "bans property owners, landlords, and property managers from entering into exclusive agreements with service providers."

Despite that federal law, "local ISPs estimate that approximately 500 multi-dwelling unit buildings, representing more than 50,000 units, have limitations in place that effectively deny them the opportunity to provide Internet access," the city's Board of Supervisors said at the time. The new ordinance was written to "clos[e] these glaring loopholes... and establish parameters and requirements for how and when qualified ISPs can provide service to multi-unit buildings."
[...]
The FCC's decision to preempt the rule comes in response to a February 2017 petition [fcc.gov][PDF] from the Multifamily Broadband Council (MBC) [mfbroadband.org], a trade group for ISPs that serve multi-tenant properties.
[...]
San Francisco opposed the MBC preemption request, not surprisingly. The city told the FCC that its rule doesn't conflict with FCC regulation because it only applies to wiring owned by a property owner.

"Article 52 does not impose any obligation to share existing wiring owned by a cable television provider or telecommunications provider, nor does it allow a communications provider to access any UNEs [unbundled network elements] owned by a telecommunications provider," San Francisco said. San Francisco also said the FCC's priority in this case should not be to "protect the business model favored by MBC's members."

What say you, Soylentils?

Is the FCC limiting competition and picking winners by favoring incumbent ISPs/exclusive agreements?

Is San Francisco abridging the rights of property owners to use their infrastructure as they see fit?

Should the FCC have a say in local wiring codes?

Does the result of such local regulation (increased choice/competition in multi-unit buildings) justify modifying existing building codes in this way?


Original Submission