Apartment landlords can force tenants to use specific ISPs under new FCC action

[scavengerspc]

I am stuck in such an agreement and my Internet is by no means cheaper! They know their the only company who can serve me and my Internet is $178 a frea*ing month! I don't believe this is a good thing.

Am I reading that right sir?
Because it sounds like you are using the only option you have anyway.
A lot of people are in that situation. Apartment or house, own or rent.

 

[Meladori]

The complex has an agreement with the cable company, the modems come pre installed. I tried to get other providers and they say not available at this time please contact your apartment manager and ask them to allow us to provide service or some version of that statement depending on the company.

 

[scavengerspc]

The complex has an agreement with the cable company, the modems come pre installed. I tried to get other providers and they say not available at this time please contact your apartment manager and ask them to allow us to provide service or some version of that statement depending on the company.

Gotcha. You know you should have a way out if that was not in your lease.

 

[captaincranky]

I see we're back in a reign of terror from the FCC, perhaps worse than when Ajit Pai was in charge.

 

[ZedRM]

The FCC can make whatever "ruling" they wish, they can not over-ride citizen rights nor can they allow such forcible subjugation by landlords. It is unlawful in every respect.

 

[captaincranky]

The FCC can make whatever "ruling" they wish, they can not over-ride citizen rights nor can they allow such forcible subjugation by landlords. It is unlawful in every respect.

Off the top of my so very empty head, I'd say that if those terms are included in the lease, a landlord can do whatever they damn well please.

Try to think of in terms of its similarity to clicking that terms of service, "I agree" button before you can activate/use software. If you don't agree with the terms of the lease, don't sign it, and seek another residence.

Assuming we're talking about an extant hard wired service, either cable or FIOS, bringing the opposite other into the building would require, "modifications to the building", which are likely nixed in most leases.

An occupant would, or perhaps should, still have the option of choosing a different wireless provider. (That's assuming the building isn't RF shielded. Which is unlikely, and very far fetched, but not impossible).

So, you can't agree to a "no pets" clause, and expect to be able to show up with a Saint Bernard, and this isn't that much different. It would be a lot more obvious, but not so very different.

I'm not entirely certain that this needed to be elevated to a "give me liberty, or give me death" issue in the first place. But what the hell, let's run with it.

The best way to deal with this would be to buy or build yourself a house. But, as tariffs went into place on Canada today, and they're a big supplier of SPF lumber, (those doggone species grow well up there in the cold), and all the illegals are being deported, Leaving nobody left to do the grunt work cheap. No worries though, I'm sure the teamsters will be able to hook you up with qualified tradesmen. It might cost a few pennies more, but so what right?

PS, I'm not sure having internet service is a "right" to begin with. Old demented Sleepy Joe tried to make it thus, but didn't succeed. I mean, considering changing the Internet from a luxury to a utility, as if it were like gas, water, or electricity, how nuts, if not flat out socialist, is that?

Let me apologize for my rambling "twaddle" or "drivel". I'm trying to improve, but it takes time.

 

[ZedRM]

a landlord can do whatever they damn well please.

No. In most if not all of the 50 states, tenant rights over-ride and supersede any unlawful contact terms. This is specifically enacted to make sure landlords can not take unfair advantage or violate basic rights of tenants.

They can not "do as they damn well please". Nor can they limit the choice of utility or service provider unless they provide it at no extra fee or charge. However, if a tenant wishes to use a different provider the law allows them to do so but at their own expense and the landlord can not prevent them from doing so nor penalize or evict them for same.

This is law the FCC can not and will not over-ride without causing legal issues with the states and problems with other federal entities.

So no, this will not happen.

 

[captaincranky]

They can not "do as they damn well please". Nor can they limit the choice of utility or service provider unless they provide it at no extra fee or charge. However, if a tenant wishes to use a different provider the law allows them to do so but at their own expense and the landlord can not prevent them from doing so nor penalize or evict them for same.

This is law the FCC can not and will not over-ride without causing legal issues with the states and problems with other federal entities.

So no, this will not happen.

OK, let's assume you're entirely correct about "tenants rights" issues. In which case, it would be easier to get the St.Bernard in the "no pets" apartment than an alternate ISP. Thus, 'Well, "Bernie's" a service dog, so screw you landlord'. That's the kind of thing a state AG would be licking his chops over, for publicity's sake and voter loyalty. "He's on our side, we better vote for him". The "I want my I-S-P", issue is far more likely to get sent to the bottom of the priorities pile, pending class action litigation. If you or I were to walk into that office as individuals, pissing and moaning because we couldn't have the ISP of our choice, we'd have a pleasant chat with the buxom young receptionist, and that's about it.

Now, I opened posting in this thread, (in relation to net neutrality), by saying something to the effect of, "is this going to be a reiteration of Ajit Pai's 'reign of terror' who was trimp's first chairman of the FCC". Basically, we could, would, or perhaps should be, dismissed as "cranks". (me particularly). So, you may be entirely correct, save for the fact the knowing that something's illegal, proving that it's illegal, and getting something done about it, have rapidly escalating thresholds of difficulty.

I hate to bring the "T man's" name into this, but our new president is certifiably insane. He's turning out executive orders that are patently unconstitutional, as fast as he can sign them, and daring anyone to stop him. State AGs are suing as fast as they can, signing petitions for injunctions to stop him. Which makes them very busy lawyers Frankly I don't see where bellyaching about being forced into switching ISPs situates itself into the context of overarching, truly serious issues, that have to be contended with ASAP.

So, suing the FCC, is a plausible option. But, it could take years. Nor could you do it on your own, despite all of your best intentions, and self interest notwithstanding. It basically boils down to, "take the deal, or find someplace else to live". Or pay for your own lawyer, and wait years for the issue to be resolved. I mean really, someone's trying to move into a $2,000 a month apartment, and they want you to accept a different ISP which will cost maybe twenty bucks more. Really, how many sympathy points do you think that'll bring?

Now you made fun of me for saying that ICE was going to be busting into people's houses "wearing red MAGA armbands and dragging people out". Well, they're actually barging into houses of worship and dragging people out. The only "mistake", (actually an exaggeration), I made, was that they're not wearing MAGA armbands.

A bishop asks him to show some mercy, and the next thing you know, she should be excommunicated.

Two airplanes collide and he rants that it's ,"Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Pete Buttigieg's fault".

Trimp 2.0 is far different from the first disaster. He's older, he's far more psychotic, and he's trying to dismantle the US government out of revenge. Can you say "project 2025"?

And as for his political appointments, >>(and the FCC chair is one of them)<<, the first time he picked people of at least moderate competence. None of them can stand his guts now. His "2.0" picks, are nothing but incompetent sycophants, a**wipes, and corrupt, but crafty, imbec!les. Hand picked to do as much damage to the US government as "humanly" possible. Again, can you say, "Project 2025"? Most people can't. They're too busy holding their breath waiting for $2.00 a carton eggs.

Believe what you want, Think of me what you will. But the one thing I'm not, is a pathological liar. But guess who absolutely is.

Like they say, "sh!t rolls downhill", and guess what, it just landed at the FCC chair. Now, try to do something about it. Best of luck with that.

To get back to topic "net neutrality" is absolutely a necessity. For a couple of decades, ISPs have been casually defrauding people by not giving them the speeds they were paying for. Without it, they could simply say, "well, the reason you're not getting the advertised speed, is because somebody more important than you was using it".

Of course, some people would voluntarily relinquish it. "Oh, give it to 'Elon' he's championing free speech. And it's true, as long as you're not saying anything bad about him. Meanwhile, he's over at the budget office trying to get every dollar the government spends across his 'desk', before it's spent. How does he find the time to be a "ultra top level gamer"? I guess we average mortals will never know.

 

[bclaymiles]

It's astonishing to me how the author of this article, as well as the vast majority of commenters, apparently have absolutely zero understanding of what a "proposal" is.

Jumpin' Jiminy Cricket in a chicken basket.

 

[captaincranky]

It's astonishing to me how the author of this article, as well as the vast majority of commenters, apparently have absolutely zero understanding of what a "proposal" is.

Jumpin' Jiminy Cricket in a chicken basket.

It's astonishing how detached some TS members are from what's going on in the US these days.
That which you consider an "innocent proposal" can quickly escalate into an "executive order". And while illegal EOs can be dealt with in the court system, the outcome is precariously dependent on whether you get a trimp appointed judge, or a sane one appointed by Biden.

Now, I'm well aware that most of the members chief concern is whether or not, tariffs on China will affect the price of tech gear. I mean I'm sure it will be a disaster if the price of VGAs will go up, thereby rendering the next bloated video game unplayable on current "devices". You'll forgive me, (or not), for thinking that might not be as critical as "they" imagine it to be.

My responses here, which you've struggled to follow, have basically (perhaps unfortunately) combined my concerns with the contents of two (2) concurrent threads, this one, about landlords and ISP choice, and one where the federal courts has struck down the FCC's ability to impose net neutrality, which is also bad news for a private citizen. You can read my take on that in the last two (2) paragraphs of my post #33 just above, in yellow.

So, despite your "jiminy cricket in a chicken basket", flippant dismissal of these issues, be aware a great many (millions) of chickens have been euthanized due to avian flu.

Which indicates to me, that you might concern yourself with whether or not, crickets, (as is claimed of so many other meats), "taste like chicken". <(and yes, that is hyperbolic sarcasm, not based in reality).

"Jumpin' jehosaphats" < There's another nonsensical colloquialism you can work into your rebuttal.

 

[ZedRM]

It's astonishing to me how the author of this article, as well as the vast majority of commenters, apparently have absolutely zero understanding of what a "proposal" is.

Proposals have a way of becoming real problems. Thus the deep concern and strong discussion.

 

[ZedRM]

[annoying wall of text]

Are you joking with that wall of text? No, just no.

 

[captaincranky]

Are you joking with that wall of text? No, just no.

In the context of you bothering to read it, being able to understand it, or agree with it, absolutely.

This is interesting. I made the same point as you about "proposals", prior to your identical response. Did you suck your response out of my answer?

It's astonishing how detached some TS members are from what's going on in the US these days.
That which you consider an "innocent proposal" can quickly escalate into an "executive order". And while illegal EOs can be dealt with in the court system, the outcome is precariously dependent on whether you get a trimp appointed judge, or a sane one appointed by Biden.

So, yes, yes, when I post what you consider "a wall of text", usually means you just don't have anything further in mind to say.

Which is the point where you resort to trying to talk down to me, right on schedule.

 

[ZedRM]

usually means you just don't have anything further in mind to say.

OR it means I just didn't bother reading that bigarse wall of text..

Which is the point where you resort to trying to talk down to me, right on schedule.

OR, I was just saying no, IE I'm not reading it..

 

[captaincranky]

OR it means I just didn't bother reading that bigarse wall of text..


OR, I was just saying no, IE I'm not reading it..

Let me sum it up for you. With respect to "tenants rights", getting the St.Bernard into a "no pets" apartment, is a much easier battle to win than the "I want my I-S-P", issue. The "it's a service animal", is a much easier confrontation to win.

Was that succinct enough to accommodate your truncated attention span?

 

[ZedRM]

Let me sum it up for you.

You missed the point yet again? What a shocker.

Which is the point where you resort to trying to talk down to me, right on schedule.

Was that succinct enough to accommodate your truncated attention span?

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[captaincranky]

You missed the point yet again? What a shocker.


Pot, meet kettle.

I'd categorize it as, "fighting fire with fire".

It's actually a shame that it was "too much trouble" to read through that "wall of text". I actually agreed with you, for the most part. The post mostly dealt with the "gravity and priority of the issue", in relation to other tenants rights concerns.

You know, sh!t like "no heat", or, "the ceiling's caving in", or maybe, "we're overrun with rats". AFAIK, those would "jump the line", so to speak. as opposed to being forced to accept a specific ISP.