Broadband group urges Newsom veto on bill related to cost of internet for renters

Stephen Hobbs, The Sacramento Bee on Sep 23, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Pleas to legislators didn’t work. Neither did a paid newspaper article.

Now a California trade group that represents major broadband providers has turned to the last person who can kill a measure that would allow renters to have more choice about which internet service they want in their homes: Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It’s one of those affordability issues that will end up biting us in the hind parts later down the road,” said Janus Norman, the CEO of the California Broadband & Video Association, also known as CalBroadband. Its members include Charter Communications, Comcast and Cox Communications.

A lobbyist for the organization wrote a letter to Newsom last week urging him to veto Assembly Bill 1414, arguing that its passage would lead to higher costs.

Landlords can enter agreements with companies to provide broadband services to tenants in bulk. The measure would require those landlords to allow renters to opt out of paying for that specific service and find another company of their choice.

Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, D-Tracy, the bill’s author, said it is about making sure people aren’t forced into agreements where they end up paying more for a service than they might otherwise.

“It’s really going to be on the corporations,” she said. “This is an opportunity to treat people fairly.”

Ransom said her office has heard from older Californians who are unable to use senior citizen discounts because they are locked into a rate or bundle internet service with the company that provides their cellphone coverage. She said the measure would protect people living in apartment complexes as well as houses that are rented by corporations.

“If landlords are giving their tenants the best affordable rate, by golly that’s good for them,” Ransom said.

San Francisco already has an ordinance that says property owners cannot interfere with a renter’s right to “obtain communications services” from the provider of their choice.

‘Somewhat baffled’

Norman said the agreements with landlords can lead to monthly cost savings of $20 or more for renters. In a sponsored article that ran on The Sacramento Bee website earlier this month, he warned that allowing people to opt out would undermine the arrangements and lead them to be phased out.

“There doesn’t have to be an outright ban on bulk billing to set the stage for its demise,” he wrote.

“We’re somewhat baffled by the argument that this would raise costs for tenants,” said Debra Carlton, a lobbyist for the California Apartment Association. “We just don’t see tenants typically opting out.”

The association has members who enter into the bulk agreements and is supportive of the bill. It is an influential group in the Capitol and is a major spender on lobbying.

Tom Bannon, the association’s CEO, recently wrote to Newsom asking for him to sign the measure, saying it “strikes a fair and balanced approach to internet access” by allowing property owners to keep using the arrangements and also giving renters the chance not to use the service.

The measure’s supporters also include the Western Center on Law & Poverty, an advocacy organization, which views the bill as promoting not just internet freedom but also equity and fair housing, said Benjamin Henderson, a lobbyist for its housing policy team.

The bill says that landlords would not be able to retaliate against tenants who decide to opt out. If they do they could be liable in a civil lawsuit and prevented from evicting a tenant or increasing their rent.

The Orange County Business Council, the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce and the Central Valley Business Federation, are joining CalBroadband’s call for a veto.

“I would say to the governor: Hold off for now,” said Clint Olivier, the business federation’s CEO and a former Fresno city councilmember. “If, in a few years, the Legislature still believes there’s a problem, let’s talk about it again, but now is not the time.”

He said the group’s board of directors is concerned it will increase costs at a time when the state is trying to connect more people to the internet.

Its members include Comcast and Charter Communications, he said. But, Olivier added, the federation’s opposition “is not in any way, shape or form a push by the telecom industry, it’s our very broad coalition.” Its membership includes Chevron, Google, Kaiser Permanente and others.

Newsom’s view of the bill is not publicly known. A spokesperson for the Governor’s Office did not respond to a request for comment on his position on the measure. It passed with more than two-thirds support in both the Senate and Assembly, including from some Republicans.

If signed, the bill would go into effect Jan. 1.

_____