The State of Colorado has entered the fray by providing better access to broadband for those living in multi-dwelling units (MDUs) – apartments, condominiums, mobile home parks, etc.  Colorado enacted HB 24-1334 which takes an aggressive position on granting ISPs access to MDUs. The law says that an MDU building owner can’t deny access to an ISP that wants to install broadband infrastructure.

I call this an aggressive law because it gives a building owner 60 days to respond to a request by an ISP to build broadband infrastructure. If the landlord doesn’t respond in that time frame, the failure to respond is deemed to be authorization for the ISP to proceed, with the provision that the ISP must follow what it perceives to be the aesthetics of the property. I seriously doubt many ISPs that would proceed under these circumstances, but that’s the language of the law. Most of the provisions of the law assume that an ISP and landlord will negotiate in good faith to allow access.

One of the most interesting aspects of the law is that a property owner cannot discriminate in rental charges or other fees for a tenant subscribing to an ISP. This seems to be a prohibition of the landlord charging a tenant for broadband as part of the rent once that tenant chooses another ISP.  The FCC is considering a nationwide rule that would allow tenants to opt out of a broadband or cable TV fee that is included in the rent – the Colorado legislation goes a lot further.

There are some restrictions on ISPs:

• An ISP can’t use any existing infrastructure or wiring owned or used by other ISPs without written authorization.
• ISPs are only guaranteed access to MDUs during normal business hours. An ISP needs written authorization from tenants before entering a rental unit.

The law assumes the two parties will negotiate, and the law provides some rights for the landlord. Some examples:

• Property owners can define the location of electronics or other infrastructure that is not inside units.
• Property owners can charge “just and reasonable compensation” for the using the property.
• Property owners can insist that ISPs carry insurance that lists the landlord as an insured party.
• The landlord can insist that the ISP is “licensed and authorized”. This likely means that the ISP has a valid business license to operate in the state, county, or city.
• The landlord gains ownership of any infrastructure that is “affixed to the real property and considered a fixture.” This would likely mean things like conduit and fiber wiring.
• A property owner is not required to bill for ISPs.

There have been a few other places that have tried something similar. For example, San Franciso passed a law in 2016 referred to as Article 52 that allows tenants in MDUs to choose their own ISP regardless of the landlord’s preference for service. The San Francisco Examiner has reported a few times over the years that the law seems to be effective.