California legislators are currently weighing Assembly Bill 1414, a measure that, while well-intentioned, could have significant unintended consequences for renters, property operators, and the state\u2019s broadband future.<\/p>\n
Introduced with the stated goal of expanding consumer choice, AB 1414 would require housing providers and associations to allow residents the ability to opt out of broadband subscriptions included in bulk billing agreements.<\/p>\n
At first glance, the measure appears pro-consumer. However, as industry stakeholders are stressing, its long-term impact could disrupt affordability, hinder network investment, and reduce access for many Californians \u2013 especially those in affordable, student, and senior housing.<\/p>\n
The role of bulk billing in multifamily broadband<\/p>\n Bulk billing is a widely used and proven model in multifamily housing. Under these agreements, a property owner contracts with an internet service provider (ISP) to deliver broadband to an entire community, usually at a reduced per-unit rate compared to individual retail subscriptions.<\/p>\n This arrangement lowers costs, simplifies access, and ensures that residents have immediate internet service upon move-in.<\/p>\n According to the 2024 NMHC\/Grace Hill Renter Preferences Survey<\/a>, 87% of renters view internet availability at move-in as \u201cvery important\u201d or \u201cabsolutely essential.\u201d<\/p>\n Bulk arrangements respond to this expectation while also eliminating equipment fees, deposits, and credit checks \u2013 barriers that can otherwise keep lower-income households offline.<\/p>\n For ISPs, bulk contracts provide a predictable revenue stream that justifies the upfront investment needed to deploy robust networks. This is especially critical in affordable housing, where low take rates and high turnover make traditional subscription models unprofitable, displaying why the disruption of this type of model could be problematic (as detailed in a white paper by Michelle Norris<\/a> that covers the crucial nature of bridging the digital divide in affordable housing).<\/p>\n Importantly, the bulk billing model has also encouraged competition: smaller independent providers have been able to enter markets and push major ISPs to improve service and pricing.<\/p>\n Risks of mandating opt-out provisions<\/p>\n AB 1414 introduces an opt-out requirement that would fundamentally undermine the economics of bulk billing. By fragmenting service, it could destabilize networks and reduce the benefits residents and operators rely on today.<\/p>\n Property owners are increasingly adopting smart technologies such as access controls, leak detection, and energy-efficient systems which require always-on connectivity. ISPs that are running these smart technologies on their networks are Managed Services Providers (MSPs), helping owners manage different areas of their business with community-wide internet connectivity that ensures the daily continuity of these technologies as part of a bulk billing model. Fragmented participation under an opt-out system would degrade performance, diminish reliability, and jeopardize safety and sustainability goals. In addition, the loss of financial predictability for these ISPs would likely reduce investment in multifamily broadband infrastructure, particularly in communities already at risk of being left behind.<\/p>\n The bill\u2019s unintended outcomes could include:<\/p>\n Higher broadband costs for renters Lessons from the federal level<\/p>\n California\u2019s consideration of AB 1414 comes despite a clear precedent set at the federal level. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has examined bulk billing multiple times, most recently in 2024, and declined to take action against it.<\/p>\n In fact, the FCC has repeatedly acknowledged the consumer benefits bulk billing provides, including lower prices, simplified access, and tailored services for residents.<\/p>\n In 2010, the FCC\u2019s Second Exclusivity Order (MB Docket 07-51<\/a>) endorsed bulk billing, concluding that its benefits outweigh potential drawbacks. More recently, in 2021 Commissioner Geoffrey Starks highlighted the role of bulk arrangements in connecting seniors, students, and low-income residents during the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program review<\/a>.<\/p>\n Just this year, the FCC formally cleared its docket<\/a> of pending items regarding bulk billing, effectively closing the door on further federal restrictions. This was the result of many stakeholders coming together<\/a> to educate those who were questioning the bulk billing model. As industry advocates noted, the commission recognized that an opt-out framework does not serve consumers well, and that undermining bulk models would harm affordability and access.<\/p>\n Advocacy efforts in California<\/p>\n Recognizing the risks of AB 1414, the Real Estate Technology and Transformation Center<\/a> (RETTC), the National Apartment Association<\/a> (NAA), and the California Rental Housing Association<\/a> (CalRHA) have taken action. Together, these organizations have submitted a detailed letter to Assemblywoman Rhodesia Ransom and Senator Scott Wiener outlining their concerns.<\/p>\n The message is clear: while supporting the state legislature\u2019s goals of improving broadband access, AB 1414 is counterproductive. By jeopardizing a model that has proven effective nationwide, the bill risks raising costs, disconnecting vulnerable populations, and slowing the state\u2019s progress on digital equity.<\/p>\n Stakeholders must work to ensure lawmakers and the governor\u2019s office fully understand these unintended consequences. Industry leaders should raise their voices. Interested parties can access national advocacy tools, such as the RETTC Bulk Billing Advocacy Toolkit published for stakeholders across the country.<\/p>\n Please contact Daria Dudzinski with RETTC at ddudzinski@rettc.org<\/a> to inquire about resources to help educate decision-makers.<\/p>\n Looking ahead<\/p>\n The legislative process in California has made AB 1414\u2019s passage likely, with little opposition to date. Much of this momentum stems from a lack of understanding of how bulk billing truly works. Advocates stress the importance of raising awareness \u2013 through public commentary, media outreach, and direct engagement with policymakers \u2013 before the bill moves further.<\/p>\n If passed, AB 1414 would put California completely out of step with federal policy and risk undoing progress in broadband deployment at a time when renters depend more than ever on reliable, affordable connectivity.<\/p>\n A call to action<\/p>\n For Californians concerned about the impacts of AB 1414, now is the time to act. Industry advocates encourage reaching out to the governor\u2019s office to highlight how this legislation could harm affordability, investment, and access for millions of renters across the state. Contact the legislators and encourage them to reconsider their approach with this bill.<\/p>\n Connectivity is no longer a luxury. It is essential infrastructure. Policies that weaken proven models such as bulk billing risk setting California back in its pursuit of digital equity, which is the opposite of what policymakers hope to achieve.<\/p>\n Daria Dudzinski is Advocacy Director for the Real Estate Technology & Transformation Center (RETTC) and can be reached here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Valerie M. Sargent is a multifamily speaker, trainer and executive consultant, and is the multifamily news correspondent for Broadband Communities. Visit her website<\/a> to learn more.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/1756170790_997_MF-Top-100-1024x120.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/1756170791_52_Copy-of-BBC-West-2024-Billboard-1-1024x120.gif\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nReduced ISP investment in multifamily housing
\nDisruption of property-wide smart technology
\nWidening of the digital divide in California<\/p>\n