Bill would bar mobile-home-park landlords from restricting tenants’ access to broadband and video services; FCC guidance complicates debate

A House committee hearing Feb. 7 examined House Bill 2225, which would amend the Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to say explicitly that the statute’s prohibition on landlord-imposed restrictions on tenants’ choice of services includes cable television, communications, broadband and telecommunications services. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025, if enacted.

Proponents, including Ethan Kaplan of IdeaTek, said the change is a narrow clarification to prevent mobile-home-park landlords from blocking broadband providers from extending service to individual tenants. “If IdeaTek or AT&T or Cox wants to give a mobile home tenant … access, the issue is whether the property owner will allow them to actually get the line to their house,” Kaplan said. He told the committee IdeaTek has encountered several situations in the last one to two years where tenant choice did not result in actual access to service; the clarification, proponents argued, would enable providers to invest in bringing fiber to parks with less risk of being blocked by property owners.

Committee members asked practical questions about how access would be implemented. Representative Hoheisel and others asked whether the bill would require a provider to install infrastructure at the landlord’s expense or require landlords to allow installation across private park property. Kaplan said providers would generally pay to install their equipment and the subscribing tenant would pay any installation charge; the bill’s focus is to prevent landlords from denying access where it is otherwise possible.

Opponents included Martha Smith of the Kansas Manufactured Housing Association, who pointed the committee to Federal Communications Commission guidance stating that multiple-tenant environments (MTEs) include mobile-home parks and that the FCC’s guidance does not bind landlords to allow any entrant. Smith told the committee the FCC consumer guide explicitly lists “mobile home parks” in the MTE definition and explains that while providers may not contractually grant exclusive access among themselves, a landlord may still control which providers are allowed onto the property. She argued the bill could conflict with existing federal guidance and with property owners’ rights in certain parks.

Manufactured-housing and park-operator witnesses also noted practical constraints in some older, higher-density parks (average park age cited in testimony: 33 years) where existing infrastructure may not physically support multiple providers servicing every lot.

Supporters and affected providers said the amendment is meant to be narrow and to preserve reasonable landlord protections: existing law permits restrictions “necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the tenants.” The Committee’s reviser confirmed a similar provision exists in the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (addressing apartment-style MTEs) but that counties typically lack franchising authority available to municipalities.

The committee did not vote on HB 2225 on Feb. 7; the chair scheduled final action for Feb. 13. The hearing record shows ongoing questions about interaction with FCC guidance, whether the change should be broader (to other rental types) and how to address practical installation and infrastructure constraints.