Apartment Internet Providers: Why You Only Get One

Two rules decide who is allowed into an apartment building: 47 CFR 64.2500 and 47 CFR 76.2000. Read them and one thing stands out before any of the substance does. Every prohibition in either one opens with the words No common carrier or No cable operator. Not one opens with No landlord.

That is most of the answer to why your building has one wired option, and why the thing people tell you — exclusive contracts are illegal now — is true and almost no help. The Commission acknowledged the hole itself, while closing a different one. Footnote 83 of its 2022 order reads in full: "Although Commission rules prohibit providers from entering into exclusive access agreements, even where a building owner and provider do not have an exclusive access agreement, a competitor will be unable to serve the building if the MTE owner unilaterally elects to exclude other providers in order to profit from a graduated revenue sharing arrangement" (FCC 22-12, adopted 11 February 2022, released 15 February 2022, read 30 September 2026).

That last clause is worth keeping attached, because the FCC went on to ban precisely that motive. Quote the sentence without it and you have the Commission declaring a general landlord loophole, which is not what it said. What it did not do — could not do, on the authority it was using — is reach an owner who has no financial motive to explain.

So the useful question is not whether something illegal is happening. It is narrower and answerable: which document in your building creates the situation, which of its terms is void by rule, which is merely permitted, and what is left for you to do. I do not live in an apartment, and this page is not a story about one. It is what the order, the current rule text, and an open FCC docket actually say, with the paragraph numbers, so you can check each claim yourself.

The rules bind the provider, not the property

There are two families of rules and they came from two different statutes, which is why they sound alike and reach different companies.

The video side runs on section 628(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 548, which makes unlawful unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts whose purpose or effect is to hinder significantly or prevent an MVPD from providing "satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming" to subscribers or consumers. That qualifier is narrower than people expect, and it is one reason the video rules land where they do. The FCC used that authority in its 2007 exclusive service contracts order to void exclusivity clauses in apartment buildings, and the D.C. Circuit upheld it in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (2009).

The telecom side runs on section 201(b), the just-and-reasonable-practices provision. That was the basis for barring exclusive access contracts between carriers and building owners, and in 2022 the Commission leaned on the same section again. Paragraph 43 of the order grounds the new rules in section 201(b) as to telecommunications carriers; paragraph 44 grounds the identical rules in section 628(b) as to covered MVPDs. Two statutes, two sets of companies, one set of prohibitions written out twice.

Both statutes give the Commission jurisdiction over companies that sell communications service. Neither gives it jurisdiction over the entity that owns your hallway. A landlord who signs nothing, promises nothing, and simply declines to let a second fiber crew into the riser has not violated an FCC rule, because no FCC rule speaks to them. That gap is not an oversight. It is the shape of the statute.

Which means the practical target of an inquiry into your building is a contract term, and the entity on the hook for it is the provider. Read the difference into the text and it gets sharper. Look at 47 CFR 64.2500 (read 30 September 2026): paragraph (a), covering commercial buildings, says no carrier shall enter into a restrictive contract. Paragraph (b), covering residential buildings, says enter into or enforce. In an apartment, a term signed in 2015 is not grandfathered — enforcing it today is the violation.

One structure makes the gap wider, and tenant filings in the FCC's own docket describe it — in one case an apartment resident objecting that the owner requires the use of an ISP the owner also owns. Where the entity selling service in the building is created by, part-owned by, or built exclusively for the property group — a managed services company whose whole business is wiring apartment portfolios — the arm's-length relationship the rules assume is not there. There is no revenue share to police, because the revenue and the property are on the same side of the table. So when you look at your building, note who the provider actually is before you look at what it signed. A name you have never seen outside your own zip code is a signal.

What is actually prohibited, and the day each prohibition started

Five things are off the table, and one thing that gets described as banned is not banned at all. The compliance dates in the table below are the ones printed in the current CFR text, which I pulled from the eCFR versioner API for Title 47 as issued 25 September 2026.

The two revenue-sharing bans are the 2022 order's real content, and they are worth understanding because they describe money, not access, and money is what actually decides these things.

An exclusive revenue share is the simpler one. The provider pays the building owner for access and forbids the owner from taking a comparable payment from anyone else. Nothing in it says the owner cannot admit a competitor. It just makes admitting one unpaid. Paragraph 21 of the order calls the effect what it is: a de facto exclusive access agreement.

A graduated revenue share is the more elegant trap, sometimes marketed as tiered or success-based. The owner's cut rises as the provider's share of the building rises. The order preserves one real schedule in footnote 79 — drawn from a 2016 press account rather than from a contract filed in the record: five percent when the provider served 51 to 55 percent of the building with video service, seven percent at 56 to 60, eight percent at 61 to 65, nine percent at 66 to 71, and ten percent above 72 percent. Read it from the owner's chair. Every unit that switches away costs more than that unit's own revenue share, because the loss can push the whole building into a lower tier. A competitor offering identical terms still cannot make the owner whole. That is the mechanism, and after 26 September 2022 a provider may not enforce a schedule like it.

Exclusive marketing is the one people get wrong. It survived. A provider can still hold the sole right to send reps down your hallway, hang door tags, appear in the leasing packet, and be introduced as the community's provider. What the 2022 order added is a disclosure: under 64.2500(e)(1) the provider's written marketing material aimed at your building must identify the arrangement in plain language, state that the exclusive marketing right "does not mean that the provider is the only entity that can provide such services to tenants," say that service from an alternative provider may be available, and do so clearly, conspicuously and legibly. Paragraph 38 defines "directed at" broadly enough to include email, regular mail, mailbox inserts, door hangers, and material handed to the landlord with the understanding it will reach tenants. It stops short of advertising that merely happens to reach you: the same paragraph excludes general area media and website promotions that do not mention your building. So the disclosure is something to look for in the move-in packet, not in a television spot.

The Commission's reason for adding the disclosure is the interesting part. The record behind paragraphs 35 and 36 includes a competitor's observation that even employees representing building owners appeared to believe an exclusive marketing arrangement precluded them from allowing other broadband providers to serve residents, and another that many building owners assume the marketing right covers access as well. Other commenters disputed that, and the footnote says so. But the FCC credited it enough to require the disclosure — which is worth knowing before you accept a leasing agent's account of what the building is allowed to do. The person telling you no may be repeating something they were never told correctly.

The three things the 2022 order left on the table

Footnote 37 is one sentence and it is the most useful sentence in the document: "we do not address other issues raised in this record, including but not limited to exclusive wiring arrangements, bulk billing, and rooftop antenna and DAS facilities access."

Exclusive wiring arrangements. The sale-and-leaseback ruling is narrow. It covers the specific move where an incumbent MVPD conveys its inside wiring to a residential building's owner before a subscriber terminates service and then leases it back exclusively — which, as paragraph 54 puts it, contravenes two provisions of 76.802(j) that exist to protect the subscriber's purchase right in 76.802(a)(2). Paragraph 59 extends that to any form of conveyance, with or without money changing hands. It does not turn every exclusive wiring deal into a violation, and paragraph 60 says the Commission will focus its scrutiny on arrangements entered into after it began examining the practice in 2017.

Rooftop and DAS access. Untouched. A building can grant one company exclusive rights to roof space and in-building antenna facilities.

Bulk billing. Untouched in 2022, and then decided against in 2025. That deserves its own section below.

Two of those three are how a building gets to one option without a single void clause. Give one provider the roof and the riser under a wiring arrangement, add exclusive marketing, add a bulk deal, and the outcome is indistinguishable from exclusivity while every individual term stays inside the rules. The tenant comments in the FCC's docket describe exactly this, repeatedly, and providers answer them the same way: no sole-provider language exists on paper.

Whether your building's provider is even covered by any of this

Before you measure your building against the rules, check that the rules reach the company in it. This is the part that no comparison site mentions, and it is decided in three paragraphs of the order.

Paragraphs 13 through 15 set the scope. The revenue-sharing and marketing-disclosure rules apply to communications services provided by telecommunications carriers, in both commercial and residential buildings, and by MVPDs subject to section 628(b), in residential buildings. Commenters asked the FCC to extend them to broadband-only providers. Paragraph 14 declines — and the hedge in its first clause is the part to hold onto: "We decline to alter the scope of these rules at this time... In tackling these issues in our Exclusive Service Contracts and Competitive Networks Orders, we did not extend our decisions to broadband-only providers... We proceed incrementally, and will continue to monitor competition in MTEs to determine whether we should alter the scope of our rules to cover other providers." Paragraph 15 then limits the revenue-sharing and marketing rules expressly to "telecommunications carriers and covered MVPDs, and the specific MTE contexts described."

So a company that sells only internet access in your building — no voice service, no video programming — was outside 64.2500 and 76.2000 when the ink dried in 2022.

It nearly changed, and then did not. The FCC's 2024 Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet order reclassified broadband as a telecommunications service, which would have made stand-alone ISPs common carriers and therefore subject to 64.2500. It never operated. The Sixth Circuit stayed the order on 1 August 2024 and then set it aside entirely on 2 January 2025. The opinion in In re MCP No. 185 (read 30 September 2026) recites the stay at page 8 and ends flatly: "we grant the petitions for review and set aside the FCC's Safeguarding Order." Reclassification is therefore not a thing that happened and was undone. It is a thing that was announced, stayed before it bound anyone, and vacated — so the classification that governed MTE contracts in February 2022 is the one that governs them now.

Practically, that means the first fact to establish about your building's provider is not its speed tier. It is what else it sells. A cable company with a video lineup is an MVPD and is covered. A telephone company selling voice is a carrier and is covered. A managed-services outfit that exists to wire apartment buildings with internet and nothing else may be neither — and if so, the exclusive-revenue-sharing and graduated-revenue-sharing rules do not reach its contract with your landlord at all. Whether a specific company falls inside or outside is a legal question about that company's own offerings, so treat this as the question to ask rather than an answer, and double-check the current classification at the FCC before you build an argument on it.

The 2007 and 2008 exclusive access prohibitions have the same seam. 76.2000(a) voids a clause granting the exclusive right to provide video programming service — alone or bundled. A contract granting one company the exclusive right to sell broadband and nothing else does not obviously fit that sentence.

The wire from the street to your wall, in three named pieces

If the question is who owns the line, the answer only exists once the line is divided up. The cable rules do that with three defined terms, and they are precise enough to be worth memorizing.

The demarcation point sits, per 47 CFR 76.5(mm)(2), about twelve inches outside where the cable enters your unit — or, where that spot is physically inaccessible, the closest practicable point that does not require getting into your apartment. Buildings wired in a loop-through configuration get the treatment in (mm)(3), with demarcation points outside the first and last units on the loop.

Cable home wiring is what is on your side of that point, including passive splitters, but not amplifiers or set-top boxes (76.5(ll)).

Home run wiring is defined at 47 CFR 76.800(d) as the wiring from the demarcation point back to where the provider's wiring becomes devoted to an individual subscriber or loop. In an apartment building that is the riser: the run from your closet down to a lockbox in the basement.

Those definitions carry real consequences on the day someone cancels.

For an individual unit, 76.802(a)(2) says the operator is not entitled to remove the home wiring unless it offers to sell it at replacement cost, you decline, and neither the building owner nor an alternative MVPD permitted by the owner has given reasonable advance notice that it would buy the wiring. Paragraph (b) scripts the phone call: on the initial call in which you cancel, an operator that owns the wiring and means to remove it must tell you it owns it, that it intends to remove it, that you may purchase it, and what the per-foot replacement cost and total charge would be, with the figures available during that call. Paragraph (e) is the enforcement: fail to follow that script and the operator "will be deemed to have relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in the home wiring." Paragraph (j) then bars it from using ownership of molding or conduit to impede your use of the wiring, and requires it to take reasonable steps so an alternative provider can reach the wiring at the demarcation point.

For a whole building the mechanism is 47 CFR 76.804, and it belongs to the owner rather than to you. It also carries a threshold condition that settles most buildings before the timeline ever starts, and it is easy to read past: (a)(1) applies only where the MVPD owns the home run wiring and does not — or will not, at the end of the notice period — have a legally enforceable right to remain on the premises against the owner's wishes. An access agreement with years still to run is exactly such a right. Where the condition is met, the owner gives the incumbent at least 90 days' written notice that access to the building is ending; the incumbent then has 30 days to elect one of three things for all the home run wiring — remove and restore, abandon without disabling, or sell. If it elects to sell, the parties get 30 days to agree a price, and failing that the incumbent must abandon, remove, or submit the price to binding arbitration by an independent expert. Miss a deadline and (a)(3) deems the wiring abandoned. There is a unit-by-unit version in (b) that runs on 60 days' notice.

Two cautions before this becomes a plan. First, this entire subpart is a cable framework hanging off video service; 76.802(l) applies that section to all MVPDs, but none of it governs the riser fiber of a broadband-only provider. Second, 76.804 is a tool for the person who controls the common areas. If you are a renter, your realistic role is to point your management company at the rule, not to invoke it. Condominium and co-op owners are in a different position, because the entity holding the notice right is a board you can vote for and whose records you may be entitled to inspect.

Bulk billing is an amenity fee with a broadband label on it

Bulk billing means the building buys service for every unit at a wholesale rate and recovers it from everyone, through rent or a mandatory monthly charge, whether or not a given household wants that service. It is common, it is legal, and the FCC has now declined to touch it three separate times.

The first refusal was in 2010, not 2007 — a distinction worth getting right, because the 2007 order is the one that voided exclusivity clauses and the two get run together. In 2010 the Commission declined to prohibit bulk billing and exclusive marketing on the basis that the record before it did not demonstrate that these practices "hinder significantly or prevent other MVPDs from providing service to [residential MTE] residents," while noting it "may review marketplace conditions again, however, if future events show that any of these practices is having new and significant anti-competitive effects." Paragraph 10 of the 2022 order recounts both sentences, citing the 2010 Exclusive Service Contracts Order at 25 FCC Rcd 2462. Then in 2022 the Commission revisited exclusive marketing, settled on disclosure, and left bulk billing in footnote 37.

The third time was a proposal that would have let individual tenants opt out. It never became a public document. Searching the Federal Register's full text for FCC items mentioning bulk billing turns up nothing at all in 2024: the agency's record on the phrase runs from the March 2022 MTE rule straight to the May 2024 net-neutrality order, with no notice of proposed rulemaking in between. On 24 January 2025 Chairman Carr ended the Commission's consideration of it, and the FCC announced that three days later. The press release dated 27 January 2025 (read 30 September 2026) identifies it only as "a 2024, Biden-Harris Administration proposal" and quotes him saying it "could have raised the price of Internet service for Americans living in apartments by as much as 50 percent."

Note what that figure is and is not. It is a sentence in a press release about a document the public never saw — no proposed rule text, no cost estimate anyone can check, no reply comments. What the docket does hold, dated 27 January 2025, is a run of at least eleven comments with identical wording, each opening "I am writing to express my opposition to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulating bulk billing arrangements." Identical filings are evidence about a filing campaign, not about prices. So anyone telling you bulk billing was proven to save residents money, and anyone telling you it was proven to trap them, is going past what this proceeding actually produced.

What matters for you is narrower. A bulk billing arrangement is not, by itself, an exclusivity clause. In most buildings it does not prevent you from buying a second connection; it prevents you from getting the first one off your ledger. Those are different problems with different answers:

• If the charge itself is the problem, the document that governs it is your lease or the association's declaration, plus state landlord-tenant law. FCC rules have nothing to say.
• If access is the problem — you want a different provider and are told no — then you are looking for a clause, and the clause may be void. Ask specifically whether the building's agreement grants the incumbent any exclusive right to provide video programming, and whether it restricts the owner's right to permit another carrier to serve tenants. Those are the two sentences the rules actually reach.
• If you are told there is no such clause and the answer is still no, you have hit the gap the rules leave open: not one of them is addressed to your landlord. The remaining routes are your state's law, your own balcony, and the docket.

Bulk billing also blurs the one document you would otherwise use to hold the provider to a number, and the rule text here is genuinely unresolved rather than simply silent. 47 CFR 8.1(a)(1) (read 30 September 2026) requires a broadband consumer label for each stand-alone broadband service a provider "currently offers for purchase," displayed at the point of sale. Two sentences in the same section pull opposite ways. Paragraph (b)(1) says that for purposes of the label rules, mass-market services "exclude service offerings customized for the customer through individually negotiated agreements" — a fair description of a contract struck between a provider and a property. Paragraph (a)(2) says point of sale "also means the time a consumer begins investigating and comparing broadband service offerings available to them at their location" — a fair description of you. Bulk arrangements are not mentioned either way, so treat this as an open question you are asking rather than a right you hold.

Do not assume that gap is about to close. The most recent change to part 8 — FCC 26-48, published at 91 FR 52251 on 13 August 2026 — rewrites §8.1(a)(1) and (a)(2) and removes three paragraphs outright, and eCFR flags that instruction as delayed indefinitely pending a further Federal Register notice. Both sentences quoted above survive the rewrite word for word, and bulk billing appears nowhere in it.

Ask for the label anyway, in writing, naming the speed tier the building contracted for. If one arrives, reading it line by line gives you the typical speeds and latency figures your service is supposed to meet. If none does, that answer is worth keeping too.

One state example, to show both what a state route looks like and what it does not give you. New York Public Service Law section 228 (read 30 September 2026) bars a landlord from interfering with the installation of cable television facilities, from demanding or accepting payment from a tenant in exchange for permitting cable television service, and from discriminating in rental charges between tenants who take cable service and those who do not. Subsection 3 separately bars cable operators from agreements that diminish tenants' existing rights to use antenna equipment.

Then read the exceptions written into the same sentence, because that is where the cost sits. The landlord may still require that the installation conform to reasonable conditions protecting the safety, functioning and appearance of the premises, may require indemnification for damage, and may require that "the cable television company or the tenant or a combination thereof bear the entire cost of the installation, operation or removal" of the facilities. A right of access is not a right to a free installation. Note also the words the statute uses throughout: cable television. Whether an equivalent exists where you live, and whether it reaches broadband rather than only cable, is a question for your state utility commission or attorney general's consumer division — and the answer varies enough that it is not worth guessing.

Seven checks you can run on your own building this week

None of these require a lawyer. All of them produce something dated that you can attach to a filing later.

1. The marketing material test. Find the most recent thing the incumbent sent to your building: door hanger, move-in packet page, resident portal banner, leasing office flyer, email addressed to your community. Look for the disclosure that 64.2500(e)(1)(ii) and 76.2000(d)(1)(ii) require — the one saying the exclusive marketing right does not make it the only possible provider. If the material introduces the company as your community's provider and carries no such language, one of two things is true: there is no exclusive marketing arrangement, or there is one and the disclosure is missing. Either finding is worth having. Photograph it with the date.

2. The lease or declaration page. Go find the exact page, not your memory of it. The words to search for are bulk, mandatory, amenity, technology fee, access agreement, right of entry, sole, and exclusive. Bulk arrangements usually live in a separately signed addendum rather than the body of the lease. Paragraph 15 of the 2022 order makes the matching point about the provider's side: the rules reach revenue sharing and exclusive marketing whether they stand alone or sit as clauses inside a larger contract, and the rest of that contract is unaffected. You are looking for a sentence, not for a document with a matching title. Photograph that page too.

3. Two written refusals, and the reason in each. Ask two other providers to serve your unit, in writing, and press for the reason they decline. The distinction you are buying is between "no facilities serve this address" and "we are not permitted access to the building." The first is a network fact and belongs in a different process — if the federal map already claims you are served, that is a map challenge rather than a building dispute. The second is a sentence about your landlord, and it is the single most valuable line you can obtain. Start from what is actually available at the address so you are asking companies that could plausibly reach you.

4. If you own, ask for the agreement. Condominium and co-op owners generally have a records inspection right under state condominium law and the association's own governing documents. Ask the board, in writing, for the telecommunications access agreement and every amendment to it, and for any bulk service agreement. Renters usually have no equivalent right. Ask anyway, in writing, and keep the answer — a refusal to produce the document is itself a fact about the building.

5. Your local franchise authority. Cable franchise agreements are public records held by the city or county that granted them, along with the service area maps and any build-out obligations. If a franchised operator's territory covers your block but your building is unserved, the franchise file tells you which of the two is refusing: the operator or the property.

6. Your state. Some states have mandatory access statutes for cable, some regulate broadband at the utility commission and some do not, and the difference decides whether there is a forum at all. Ask your commission's consumer division a single question in writing: does state law require a residential landlord to permit a tenant's chosen communications provider to install service, and does it cover broadband. Save the answer.

7. Your own balcony. This is the check most likely to change your month. 47 CFR 1.4000 (read 30 September 2026) prohibits — to the extent it impairs, which is the phrase the rule actually uses — any lease provision, HOA rule or private covenant restricting the installation, maintenance or use of an antenna one meter or less in diameter used to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals — via satellite under (a)(1)(i), by other means under (a)(1)(ii) — on property within your exclusive use or control where you hold an ownership or leasehold interest. A restriction impairs if it unreasonably delays or prevents installation, unreasonably increases its cost, or precludes an acceptable-quality signal. Paragraph (g) puts the burden of proving a restriction lawful on whoever imposes it, and (e) lets you petition the FCC for a declaratory ruling. The limits are real: a shared roof is not your exclusive-use area, and safety and historic-preservation restrictions survive under (b). But an assigned balcony or patio, a dish under a meter, and a bulk billing arrangement you cannot escape add up to a route that does not require your landlord's cooperation. Before committing, read what 5G home internet actually requires at an address and what satellite costs once the fees are in, because a rule that protects the antenna says nothing about whether the service will hold a video call.

Where a finding goes once you have one

Order matters, and the first stop is the provider — not because it will help, but because a documented refusal is what every later forum asks for. Open a written dispute and keep the ticket number. The mechanics of building that record are in disputing a charge with your provider first.

After that, an informal FCC complaint is the route that puts a named company on a clock, and a state utility commission may or may not have jurisdiction over broadband where you live. Both paths, and the order to try them in, are in how to complain about an internet provider.

Be clear-eyed about what that complaint can reach. The respondent is the provider, because the provider is the entity the Communications Act gives the Commission authority over. Your landlord is not a party and will not be asked to answer. A complaint is therefore the right tool for a clause a provider is enforcing and the wrong tool for a property that is simply saying no — which is why the written refusal from check three matters so much. It decides which of those two situations you are in before you spend thirty days finding out.

There is a third thing, and almost nobody uses it properly. GN Docket No. 17-142 — the proceeding that produced the 2022 order — is still open and still accepting comments. I queried the FCC's ECFS API for that docket on 30 September 2026: it returned 2,273 filings, 1,847 of them express comments, with a close date of 31 December 2099, and the most recent comments dated 16 and 17 September 2026.

Two of those are worth describing, because they are not the same complaint. The 17 September comment comes from a tenant in Iowa whose building runs on mandatory bulk billing; it records that when the writer pressed the point, the provider stated on the record that its contract contains no explicit sole-provider restriction, while the property went on barring other local carriers from the building infrastructure — and it cites the writer's own FCC ticket number, which is what makes it a document rather than a grievance. A 16 September comment comes from a Texas homeowner rather than a renter, whose homeowners' association folded an exclusive telecommunications charge into dues, so that not paying it puts the home at risk. The first is the pattern this page is about. The second is a reminder that the definition in 76.2000(e) sweeps in a gated community, a mobile home park and a garden apartment development, while expressly leaving out dormitories, hotels, nursing homes and assisted living — so the first question about a building is sometimes whether it is an MDU at all.

A docket comment is not a complaint. It gets you no refund, no order, and no reply. What it does is put a dated, specific account of your building into the record the Commission consults the next time it revisits these rules — and the practice it decided not to regulate in 2025 is precisely the one the record is filling up with. Filings that get weighed have a building name, a city, a provider name, the exact language of the clause or the exact words of the refusal, a date, and a ticket number where one exists. Filings that do not are identical to dozens of others; one commenter in August 2026 filed a list of duplicate submissions to flag exactly that problem.

If you are about to sign somewhere new rather than argue about where you already live, the sequence is different and cheaper — checking the building before the lease is the whole subject of what to try when no provider you want serves an address.

The paragraph worth sending before anything else

Everything above converges on one request, and it goes to the leasing office or the board, in writing, with a date on it. Not a complaint — a records question, phrased so that a "no" is as useful as a "yes":

Does the building's agreement with its communications provider grant that provider any exclusive right to provide video programming service to the property, and does it restrict the owner's right to permit another provider to access and serve tenants? If neither term exists, is the property nonetheless declining to grant access to other providers, and on what basis?

Both halves matter. If the answer to the first question is yes, you have found a clause that 47 CFR 76.2000(a) or 64.2500(b) may already have voided, and the provider — not the landlord — is the party that cannot enforce it. If the answer is no to the first and yes to the second, you have a written admission of the gap no FCC rule reaches — and that is the kind of thing worth putting in the docket.

Send it today, note the date you sent it, and put a reminder fourteen days out. The clause you are asking about has been unenforceable since September 2022. Nobody is going to mention that on your behalf.