Breed bashes FCC broadband proposal
San Francisco Mayor London Breed has spoken out against the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to overrule a provision of a city ordinance.
In a letter sent on Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DSan Francisco, Breed wrote that the FCC’s proposal to preempt part of a city law that prevents landlords of multiunit buildings from blocking tenants from accessing the internet service provider of their choice would hurt residents by reducing competition for communications services.
The provision of the ordinance, known as Article 52, says property owners can’t deny internet service providers access to existing wiring within multiunit residential and commercial buildings. It was the first such rule in the nation when the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed it in 2016, according to thensupervisor Mark Farrell.
“San Francisco adopted Article 52 because it is uneconomic and, in the case of many older buildings, impossible, for multiple carriers to install their own wiring to reach each occupant,” Breed wrote, in a letter thanking Pelosi for her leadership on the topic. “Consequently, rather than fostering competition, the proposed order would strip occupants of many (multitenant environments) in San Francisco of a meaningful choice of communications providers.”
Breed was president of the Board of Supervisors when the ordinance was approved.
The law also says that internet service providers must pay property owners “reasonable compensation” for access to their buildings. The process has stepbystep guidelines with specific deadlines.
The FCC has scheduled a vote on the matter for their July 10 meeting. The commission’s proposal would “preempt an outlier San Francisco ordinance to the extent it requires the sharing of inuse wiring in MTEs (multiple tenant environments), a policy which deters broadband deployment,” Chairman Ajit Pai wrote in a June 18 blog post.
Breed said the characterization of Article 52 was wrong.
“Article 52 does not require sharing of ‘inuse’ wiring,” Breed wrote. “The proposed order also suggests that this ‘forced sharing of inuse facilities ... encourages providers to free ride on existing infrastructure rather than building their own.’ In making this statement, the proposed order ignores clear language in Article 52 that a ‘property owner is entitled to just and reasonable compensation from a communications services provider.’ ” While Article 52 lowers the cost for a provider to obtain access to an multiunit building, she said, “it does not provide a ... ‘free ride.’ ”
The FCC proposal has hit at least one bump: The House of Representatives last week approved a budget amendment introduced by Rep. Katie Porter, DIrvine, that would prevent the FCC from finalizing a draft rule that would overturn a provision of San Francisco’s local ordinance. The amendment was passed as part of a group, but it could still fail in the Senate.
“The communications industry is in dire need of more competition,” Porter said in a statement. “San Francisco’s Article 52 has been incredibly effective in promoting broadband competition — giving residents the benefit of competition and choice in the market, increasing their service quality while decreasing their monthly bills.”