Cable, Internet, and Telecom Access in HOAs and Condos

Section 1: Overview — Federal limits on provider agreements

Federal rules limit what a cable or communications provider agreement may contain, principally by barring exclusive access clauses, and they leave the commercial terms boards argue about (price, term, renewal, and service levels) to contract and state law.¹ The framework is the Federal Communications Commission's set of rules for multiple dwelling units and multiple tenant environments, codified principally at 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 with related inside-wiring rules at 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.800-806, built across three main proceedings in 2007, 2010, and 2022.² Bulk billing, in which a provider serves every unit at a discounted per-unit rate, is permitted under the federal framework.³ The 2022 order barred exclusive and graduated revenue-sharing agreements and required plain-language disclosure of exclusive marketing arrangements.⁴ How far the rules reach into communities of detached homes turns on the defined term "MDU," which extends to centrally managed residential developments without applying uniformly across every association type.⁵ This page covers what the association contracts for, while the OTARD rule, covered separately, governs what a resident may install. The sections below set out the framework, the operational map of permitted and prohibited terms, recent activity, and the interaction with state law.

Section 2: The regulatory framework

2A. The exclusive access ban and what it covers

The 2007 Exclusive Service Contracts Order (FCC 07-189, MB Docket No. 07-51, adopted October 31, 2007) prohibited cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors subject to 47 U.S.C. § 548 from enforcing or executing any contract clause granting the exclusive right to provide video programming service to an MDU, and declared all such clauses null and void.⁶ The rule is codified at 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000(a), and the prohibition runs against the provider, not the association.¹ The order was published at 73 FR 1080 (January 7, 2008).⁷ The D.C. Circuit upheld the rule in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2009), concluding that Section 628(b) of the Communications Act authorized the Commission's action.⁸

The defined term in § 76.2000(e) sets the reach of the rule. It provides that "MDU" includes a multiple dwelling unit building (such as an apartment building, condominium building, or cooperative) and any other centrally managed residential real estate development (such as a gated community, mobile home park, or garden apartment), while excluding time-share units, academic campuses and dormitories, military bases, hotels, rooming houses, prisons, jails, halfway houses, hospitals, and nursing homes.⁵ The Fourth Circuit applied the exclusive-access prohibition to a homeowners association in Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Association v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC, 713 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2013), where a homeowners association governed the development and the court treated it as a centrally managed development.⁹ Whether a given community of detached homes qualifies therefore depends on whether it is "centrally managed" in the sense the rule contemplates. The answer is clear for gated communities and less certain at the edges for loosely managed detached-home associations, and the rule does not automatically cover every homeowners association.⁵

What remained permitted after 2007 included exclusive marketing arrangements and bulk service arrangements, which the Commission addressed in its 2010 order.³ The 2007 order rendered existing exclusivity clauses unenforceable rather than merely barring new ones going forward, prohibiting both the enforcement of existing clauses and the execution of new ones.⁶

2B. The 2022 MTE Order

The Commission adopted the 2022 Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, Improving Competitive Broadband Access to Multiple Tenant Environments (FCC 22-12, GN Docket No. 17-142) on February 11, 2022 and released it February 15, 2022; it was published at 87 FR 17181 (March 28, 2022) and took effect April 27, 2022.⁴ The order prohibited two revenue-sharing structures. Under § 76.2000(c), a provider may not enter into or enforce any contract in which it receives the exclusive right to provide the MDU owner compensation in return for access to the MDU and its tenants.¹ Under § 76.2000(b), a provider may not enter into or enforce any contract in which it gives the MDU owner compensation on a graduated basis, defined as compensation per tenant served that increases as the total number of tenants served in the MDU increases.¹

The order did not prohibit all revenue sharing. It targeted the exclusive and graduated structures specifically, leaving compensation that is neither exclusive nor graduated outside the two prohibitions.¹⁰ The order also added a plain-language disclosure requirement at § 76.2000(d): a provider holding the exclusive right to market its service to tenants must disclose that arrangement on all written marketing material directed at tenants or prospective tenants, stating that the exclusive marketing right does not mean the provider is the only entity that can serve the MDU and that service from an alternative provider may be available.¹ By declaratory ruling, the Commission clarified that its existing cable inside-wiring rule at § 76.802(j) prohibits sale-and-leaseback arrangements, in which an incumbent conveys its inside wiring to the MDU owner and leases it back on an exclusive basis to circumvent the wiring-access rules.¹¹ The revenue-sharing and disclosure rules applied to both new and existing contracts, with existing-contract compliance required after September 26, 2022.¹

2C. Inside wiring, bulk billing, and the framework's limits

The cable inside-wiring rules at 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.800-806 govern the disposition of home-run wiring when an incumbent provider stops serving a building. Under § 76.804(a), where the provider owns the home-run wiring and lacks an enforceable right to remain, the MDU owner may give at least 90 days' written notice that building access will be terminated; the provider then has 30 days to elect, for all the home-run wiring, to remove the wiring and restore the building consistent with state law, to abandon and not disable the wiring, or to sell the wiring to the MDU owner.¹² If the provider fails to meet the deadlines, it is deemed to have elected to abandon the wiring at the end of the 90-day notice period.¹²

In its 2010 Second Report and Order (FCC 10-35, 25 FCC Rcd 2460, MB Docket No. 07-51, released March 2, 2010), the Commission declined to prohibit bulk billing. The order stated that "the record before us shows that bulk billing arrangements predominantly benefit consumers, through reduced rates and operational efficiencies, and by enhancing deployment of broadband," and that "we do not prohibit any MVPD from using bulk billing arrangements."¹³ In March 2024, then-Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced a proposal to restrict bulk billing by letting tenants opt out, stating that "everyone deserves to have a choice of broadband provider"; the draft circulated internally and never issued as a public notice.¹⁴ On January 24, 2025, Chairman Brendan Carr ended the Commission's consideration of the proposal, stating that he was "ending the FCC's consideration of a Biden-era plan that would have artificially raised the cost of Internet service."¹⁵ The Commission never adopted the proposal, it is not a rule, and bulk billing remains permitted.¹⁵

The framework is oriented toward cable operators and MVPDs subject to 47 U.S.C. § 548, with a parallel set of rules for telecommunications common carriers at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2500.¹⁶ The 2022 order's rules did not reach broadband-only providers that are neither cable operators nor common carriers.¹⁰ The framework does not reach price, contract term, renewal, escalators, service-level commitments, or the question of whether the board had authority to bind the association. Those are contract and state-law questions.¹⁷

Section 3: What associations can and cannot sign with providers

A. Access and exclusivity

A provider agreement may not contain an enforceable clause granting a cable operator or MVPD the exclusive right to provide video service where the community qualifies as an MDU, because § 76.2000(a) renders such clauses null and void.¹ The rules bind providers, not associations, so an association may still set reasonable conditions on a provider's entry, installation, and restoration, and a board may choose which providers it admits.¹⁶ Whether a specific detached-home community is covered turns on the "centrally managed residential real estate development" definition, so a board reviewing a proposed agreement should confirm coverage rather than assume it.⁵

B. Revenue sharing, door fees, and marketing

An agreement may not grant a provider the exclusive right to compensate the association for access (exclusive revenue sharing), nor may it pay the association on a graduated basis that rises with penetration.¹ Exclusive marketing arrangements remain permitted, and they trigger the § 76.2000(d) disclosure obligation on the provider's marketing materials.¹ How the agreement labels a payment from a provider to the association does not control the analysis, because the prohibitions turn on whether the compensation is exclusive or graduated in substance.⁴

C. Bulk service agreements

The federal framework permits bulk service agreements, and the Commission withdrew the 2024 proposal to restrict them in January 2025.¹⁵ The terms that remain the board's responsibility, and that federal law does not govern, include per-unit pricing, contract term, renewal and escalator provisions, service-level commitments, technology refresh, and whether individual owners may opt out.¹⁷ Whether all owners can be charged for a bulk service, and whether a board may bind the association for a long term, are declaration and state-law questions that appear in the state Governing Statute and Budget Approval columns.¹⁷

D. Wiring, transitions, and competing providers

When an incumbent exits, home-run wiring disposition follows the sale, removal, or abandonment election and notice sequence in § 76.804.¹² An agreement may not use a sale-and-leaseback of inside wiring to lock out competitors, which the 2022 declaratory ruling identified as a circumvention of § 76.802(j).¹¹ Because these rules turn on wiring ownership, an association should document who owns the home-run and inside wiring at each transition so it can evaluate a competing provider or fiber overbuilder.¹²

Section 4: Recent rulemaking, litigation, and legislative activity

A. FCC proceedings

B. Court decisions

C. Legislation and active debates

Broadband bills in the 119th Congress focus on deployment and permitting rather than MTE access. The Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act (H.R. 5273, introduced by Rep. John Joyce), for example, addresses environmental and permitting review of broadband projects rather than provider agreements in associations.¹⁹ The debate over bulk billing continues after the January 2025 withdrawal, with the Bulk Broadband Alliance (launched July 23, 2024 by EducationSuperHighway, the Community Associations Institute, the National Multifamily Housing Council, the National Apartment Association, and ACA Connects) defending the model, and no federal bill or FCC proceeding currently restricts bulk billing.²⁰

Section 5: Interaction with state law and related coverage

The federal rules set outer limits on what a provider agreement may contain, while state law and the declaration decide whether the board could sign it, how long it may run, and whether every owner can be charged for the service.¹⁷ Several state common-interest statutes limit the term of contracts entered during declarant control or permit a post-turnover board to terminate them, and some states have their own MDU access statutes; those provisions vary, and the state matrix addresses them rather than this page. Readers go next to the state Governing Statute and Budget Approval columns for authority and cost allocation, and to the antenna pages for what residents may install.

HOA Weekly's federal telecom access coverage updates quarterly as the FCC acts. Contract authority, cost allocation, and document inspection rights appear in the Governing Statute, Budget Approval, and Records Inspection columns of the state matrix.

Footnotes

1. 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000, Exclusive access to multiple dwelling units generally (eCFR) ↩
2. 47 C.F.R. Part 76 Subpart M, Cable Inside Wiring (eCFR) ↩
3. Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in MDUs, Second Report and Order, 75 FR 12580 (Mar. 16, 2010) ↩
4. Improving Competitive Broadband Access to Multiple Tenant Environments, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 22-12, 87 FR 17181 (Mar. 28, 2022) ↩
5. 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000(e), definition of MDU (eCFR) ↩
6. Exclusive Service Contracts Order, MB Docket No. 07-51, FCC 07-189 (adopted Oct. 31, 2007; released Nov. 13, 2007) ↩
7. Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in MDUs, Final Rule, 73 FR 1080 (Jan. 7, 2008) ↩
8. FCC 22-12 (citing National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) ↩
9. Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass'n v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC, 713 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2013) ↩
10. FCC 22-12, 87 FR 17181 (scope of revenue-sharing prohibitions and providers covered) ↩
11. FCC 22-12 (declaratory ruling on 47 C.F.R. § 76.802(j) and sale-and-leaseback arrangements) ↩
12. 47 C.F.R. § 76.804, Disposition of home run wiring (eCFR) ↩
13. Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in MDUs, Second Report and Order, FCC 10-35 (2010) ↩
14. FCC, Chairwoman Rosenworcel Announces Push to Lower Costs and Increase Broadband Choice, DOC-400915A1 (Mar. 5, 2024) ↩
15. FCC, Chairman Carr Ends Consideration of Biden-Era "Bulk Billing" Proposal, DOC-409130A1 (Jan. 27, 2025) ↩
16. FCC, Consumer FAQ: Rules for Service Providers in Multiple Tenant Environments ↩
17. 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000 (federal rules do not address price, term, or board authority) ↩
18. Ohio Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 124 F.4th 993 (6th Cir. 2025) ↩
19. H.R. 5273, Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act, 119th Congress (congress.gov) ↩
20. Bulk Broadband Alliance launch announcement (July 23, 2024) ↩