I 
117TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 4875 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to issue a notice of 
inquiry related to digital redlining, to prohibit digital redlining, and 
for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JULY 30, 2021 
Ms. CLARKE of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
A BILL 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to issue 
a notice of inquiry related to digital redlining, to prohibit 
digital redlining, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 
‘‘Anti Digital Redlining Act of 2021’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 
this Act is as follows: 
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose. 
Sec. 3. Notice of inquiry to assess factors that indicate digital redlining is oc-
curring. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6211
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Sec. 4. Rules required to prevent digital redlining. 
Sec. 5. Public complaints at the Commission. 
Sec. 6. Enforcement of antiredlining provision. 
Sec. 7. Prohibition of ISP or MVPD exclusive agreements with multi-dwelling 
units. 
Sec. 8. Study of the impact of franchising agreements on consumers and com-
petition. 
Sec. 9. No forbearance or waiver. 
Sec. 10. No preemption of consistent State or local authority. 
Sec. 11. Definitions. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) Many consumers pay as much for DSL as 
they do for fiber, despite fiber offering significantly 
faster speeds and greater reliability. 
(2) Internet service providers are less likely to 
upgrade to fiber as a transmission medium in low- 
income communities. Households where fiber net-
works are deployed have a median income 34 per-
cent higher than those with only DSL. 
(3) Communities of color are more likely to 
have slower and less reliable internet service. This 
disparity creates significant barriers to accessing 
employment opportunities, educational opportunities, 
healthcare resources, and diminishes opportunities 
for civic engagement. 
(4) The creation of significant disparities in 
internet service within a geographic area imposes 
significant costs not only on the individuals with 
slower or less reliable service, but on government at 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
the local, State and Federal level by requiring gov-
ernments to provide non-digital as well as digital 
means of accessing benefits, paying bills, sharing in-
formation, and otherwise choosing between either of-
fering redundant non-digital means of interaction or 
excluding residents without access to high speed, re-
liable broadband. 
(5) Communities with poor quality broadband 
have difficulty attracting businesses, attracting new 
residents, and have difficulty competing with com-
munities with superior broadband options available. 
(6) Companies can deploy fiber to most lower 
income communities and generate sufficient revenue 
to recoup the cost of deployment. 
(7) Broadband is an essential service and con-
sumers, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, color 
or 
national 
origin 
deserve 
affordable 
reliable 
broadband. 
(8) Competition between internet service pro-
viders within a specific neighborhood is an important 
means of ensuring quality service and lower prices to 
the residents of that neighborhood. By contrast, 
neighborhoods with a single provider often suffer 
from lower quality service and higher prices. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
(9) Internet service providers, State and local 
governments, and the Federal Communications 
Commission have all identified arrangements by 
ISPs between landlords, housing associations, and 
other relevant private entities designed (collectively 
‘‘landlords’’) to thwart access by competitors as a 
significant contributing factor to digital redlining by 
preventing or discouraging access to superior service 
and eliminating the threat of competition to the pre-
ferred provider. These arrangements may take the 
form of exclusive access for a single provider, dis-
counts to residents on rent, utility payments, or 
other landlord generated charges, additional ex-
penses to either the resident or the competing pro-
vider to access and install necessary equipment or 
inside wiring. Landlords may also impose restric-
tions on access by rival providers for purposes of 
marketing rival services, or otherwise limit commu-
nication between rival providers and residents. 
(10) Although the Federal Communications 
Commission formally prohibited express exclusive 
agreements between landlords and broadband pro-
viders in 2007, these arrangements continue to per-
sist as a consequence of loopholes and the lack of an 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
effective enforcement mechanism to ensure swift ac-
cess of willing competitors to willing customers. 
(11) Even where local and State authorities 
have reached agreements with competing internet 
service providers to deploy in neighborhoods suf-
fering redlining, the presence of these agreements 
has thwarted competitive entry and aggravated dig-
ital redlining. 
(12) As a consequence of agreements between 
landlords and internet service providers, Americans 
can lose the benefits of competition, leading to high-
er prices and poorer service. 
(13) Traditionally, wireless technologies have 
been less subject to digital redlining because a single 
tower can cover an area of many miles. Newer wire-
less technologies, such as 5G, employ towers with 
much smaller coverage areas—sometimes requiring 
multiple towers to provide adequate coverage within 
a neighborhood. This has generated concern that, 
without Congressional action, communities that now 
suffer digital redlining from wireline services may 
suffer similar wireless digital redlining in the future. 
(14) Easements and access to private property 
for the purpose of providing critical and competing 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
services are a well-established regulatory tool, and 
do not constitute an unconstitutional taking. 
(b) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this Act— 
(1) to identify and remedy ‘‘digital redlining’’, 
regardless of the level of competition in the market 
as a whole, by ensuring all Americans, especially 
those in traditionally underserved or marginalized 
communities, have access to competing broadband 
networks at the same quality of service, at reason-
able prices, as available in other similarly situated 
communities with higher median incomes or dif-
ferent demographic makeup; 
(2) to empower and require the Federal Com-
munications Commission to identify what constitutes 
digital redlining, and to empower and require the 
Commission to enact regulations designed to elimi-
nate digital redlining; and 
(3) to enable competing broadband providers 
frustrated by exclusive arrangements between rival 
providers and landlords to serve willing customers. 
SEC. 3. NOTICE OF INQUIRY TO ASSESS FACTORS THAT IN-
DICATE DIGITAL REDLINING IS OCCURRING. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, the Commission shall issue a notice of 
inquiry that seeks public comment on the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
(1) Criteria necessary to determine where ISPs 
are not upgrading systems or deploying new systems 
capable of supporting robust broadband access of 
comparable quality with the broader community. 
(2) Criteria to define the granularity of the geo-
graphic area necessary to determine whether dis-
criminatory factors are being used to delay deploy-
ment of robust broadband. 
(3) The reasons ISPs use to determine where 
facilities are upgraded to provide robust broadband 
and what factors deter deployment in those granular 
areas that are not served. 
(4) The disparity investment in high-income 
areas compared to low-income areas within the geo-
graphic service area of an ISP. 
(5) Disparity of investment based on race. 
(6) Availability of fiber to the home, or deploy-
ment of fiber-to-the-curb or headend, within a geo-
graphic service area. 
(7) Degradation in quality of service within geo-
graphic service area over a given period of time. 
(8) Tier flattening in rural and urban service 
areas. 
(9) Network resiliency issues, including fre-
quency of outages. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
(10) The reliability of networks with respect to 
the recovery of outages. 
SEC. 4. RULES REQUIRED TO PREVENT DIGITAL RED-
LINING. 
(a) RULES REQUIRED.—Not later than 2 years after 
the date of the enactment of this Act and based on the 
findings from the notice of inquiry under section 3, the 
Commission shall promulgate rules that do the following: 
(1) Overcome identified barriers from such no-
tice of inquiry, including rules to prevent discrimina-
tion of access based on income level, race, color, reli-
gion, or national origin. 
(2) Define the granularity of the geographic 
area in which the Commission considers compliance 
with the rules adopted, taking into account whether 
information at a census-block level or a more dis-
crete level is needed to identify areas where redlining 
is occurring. 
(3) Determine what factors would permit an 
ISP to not deploy to the entirety of a clearly defined 
geographic area with comparable robust broadband 
service, taking into account that deployment plan-
ning for areas may proceed in differing stages. In 
developing this determination, the Commission shall 
establish a process by which a provider may request 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
an exemption from a requirement to deploy robust 
broadband to the entirety of a clearly defined geo-
graphic area upon a showing that factors other than 
income level, race, color, religion, or national origin 
are the causes of the inability to deploy broadband. 
(b) COMMISSION POLICIES.—The Commission shall 
ensure that the policies of the Commission promote equal 
access to robust broadband by prohibiting deployment dis-
crimination based on the income level of an area, the pre-
dominant race or ethnicity composition of an area, or 
other factors the Commission determines based on the 
findings in the record developed from this any rule pro-
mulgated under this section and the notice of inquiry 
under section 3. 
SEC. 5. PUBLIC COMPLAINTS AT THE COMMISSION. 
An individual may file a complaint using the public 
complaint system of the Commission for a violation of this 
Act. A complaint shall specify which provision of this Act 
or rule of the Commission is allegedly violated. The Com-
mission shall adopt such rules as are necessary to facili-
tate the filing and enforcement of any such complaint. 
SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT OF ANTIREDLINING PROVISION. 
(a) COMMISSION ORDERS.—The Commission may 
issue an order to remedy a violation of a rule issued pursu-
ant to section 4, which may include any of the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:36 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4875.IH
H4875
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS