Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance ordinance to guarantee tenants’ choice of internet providers
Summary
The Budget & Finance Committee amended and forwarded Supervisor Mark Farrell’s ordinance to prohibit building owners from blocking tenants’ choice of certified Internet service providers, adding provisions for owner notice, ISP plans, insurance, and protections for historic/lead concerns.
A San Francisco ordinance to ensure tenants can choose qualified Internet service providers cleared the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee on Nov. 30 after amendments meant to protect building owners and safety were accepted.
Supervisor Mark Farrell, sponsor of the measure, told the committee the ordinance is designed to close a “loophole” that lets some owners and managers limit competition for tens of thousands of units. Farrell said the measure would require CPUC‑certified providers to give advance written notice, present visual installation plans, use licensed contractors, pay reasonable costs, and indemnify owners for damages. "I strongly believe that Internet access should be viewed as a fundamental right," Farrell said, framing the measure as part of closing the digital divide.
The ordinance’s authors and supporters said the rule targets owner‑controlled wiring and explicit denials of access, not incumbent providers’ internal cabling. Farrell and staff clarified amendments to limit the rule to wiring owned by the building owner and to exclude wiring owned by Internet providers from the ordinance’s reach.
The committee hearing drew dozens of public commenters. Competitive providers including Sonic CEO Dane Jasper and Webpass founder Charles Barr urged the ordinance, saying some building owners currently deny access even when fiber passes by tenants’ doors. Industry groups such as CalTel and trade associations supported the policy but asked for more clarity on existing contracts and installation rules. Building‑owner groups including BOMA and the Apartment Association said they back tenant access in principle but asked for longer timelines, stronger protections for existing contracts, and clearer thresholds for alterations, warning about unintended consequences.
The amendments the committee approved added procedural safeguards: owners may be given a reasonable response period, ISPs must submit visual plans, installations must be licensed and insured, indemnification by providers is required, and exceptions were clarified for buildings where lead paint, asbestos, or historic preservation issues make installations unsafe. The amendment package also requires notice to the city before civil penalties would accrue, intended to encourage dispute resolution before fines.
Supporters said the ordinance would expand competition and choice for residents and small businesses; opponents urged continued negotiation to avoid conflict with valid contractual rights and building safety. The committee accepted the amendments and forwarded the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation.
