Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Landlords, ISPs Team Up To Rip Off Tenants On Broadband (backchannel.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the low-in-fiber dept.

"Network operators like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and ATT, in cahoots with [real estate] developers and landlords, routinely use a breathtaking array of kickbacks, lawyerly games of Twister, blunt threats, and downright illegal activities to lock up buildings in exclusive arrangements," reports Harvard Law Professor Susan Crawford. itwbennett writes: Eight years ago, the FCC issued an order banning exclusive agreements between landlords and ISPs, but a loophole is being exploited, leaving many tenants in apartment buildings with only one choice of broadband service provider. The loophole works like this: Instead of having an exclusive agreement with one provider, the landlords refuse to let any other companies than their chosen providers access their properties...
"This astounding, enormous, decentralized payola scheme affects millions of American lives," Crawford writes, revealing Comcast's revenue-sharing proposals for property owners and urging cities (and national lawmakers) to require broadband neutrality in residential buildings. Other loopholes are also being exploited, Crawford writes, and "it's why commercial tenants in NYC pay through the nose for awful Internet access service in the fanciest of commercial buildings... We've got to take landlords out of the equation -- all they're doing is looking for payments and deals...and the giant telecom providers in our country are more than happy to pay up."

105 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Tenants of the world unite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Vote for Trump!

    1. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by irving47 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're being sarcastic? I want him over Hillary by about a million times over, but don't see him asking his FCC chairman to start interfering with good ol' "Capitalism"

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you understand. To Trump's loyal followers, what Trump does is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. His actions, his behavior, his history, they have no bearing on his fitness and suitability. All that counts is that he hates Mexicans and Muslims, and will do some vague things that will somehow make everything better.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just like Justin Bieber fans...

      Oh jesus christ... Trump followers are EXACTLY like Bieber fans....

      I bet they like Nickelback as well.....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My mom and I aren't Trump's loyal followers, and I won't even be voting due to circumstances than I don't want to go into, but my mom is more conservative than I am. We believe that Trump does a better job at understanding and acting on his best interests than most of the political creatures. He lies more blatantly than they do. It's hard to be certain which of what he says is a lie, but he would make a racist statement he doesn't actually believe in order to advance his interests. We believe it is likely he will find his way to make things work better than most of the other people, though if Bernie became an option and I were to vote, I would probably vote for Bernie over Trump. But Trump is better than Hillary in my book, because of his better understanding of how to get where he wants to go. With Hillary there's too much things like the "What difference does it make" and the home email server going on. If she had told a somewhat plausible lie instead of "What difference does it make" that would actually improve her suitability in my book. If her duplicity were revealed and she came back with something about how national security would be compromised if the facts were made known to the public and that was a public hearing, I could live with that. But she didn't do any of those things, Those are the sorts of things me and my mom look at when determining the suitability of any candidate to almost any office and when making determinations of people in general. I am generally more liberal than my mom.

    5. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But he really doesn't. His claims as to his acumen are largely nonsense, it's becoming clear that his claims of wealth have been heavily exagerated, in part to build up an undeserved reputation as a wheeler dealer. I guess that means he gets what he wants, much like any snake oil dealer will con the gullible into parting with their cash in return for empty promises.

      Hillary's a shitty candidate, but she'll make a better president. It really is that simple. A vote for Trump is a vote for a con man who, as even you admit, basically says anything to get a vote. Worse, a vote for Trump is simply rewarding the man who is guaranteeing the GOP's agonies go forward. They need to excise themselves of the kinds of people who vote for Trump, because that's a fading demographic. The GOP has known that for years, which is why they put some much effort on the ground to build support among Latino voters, which Trump has literally destroyed to gain louder cheers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by hackwrench · · Score: 1, Informative

      I would vote for Bernie over Trump but Trump over Hillary, but How You Remind Me is something I listen to. I thought Closing Time might be a Nickelback song, but it's apparently by a group called Semisonic.

      Photograph isn't too bad, but falls outside my taste to actually listen to really. I have a vague impression of several good songs that sound like they might be Nickelback songs, and that may be giving Nickelback fans the impression that Nickelback songs are good or at least better than they actually are. There's a song with lyrics that go "Hey now, you're a rock star. Get your show on. Get paid."- and saw they had a song called, "Rockstar". Not the same song at all.

    7. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Vote for Trump!

      Need "ironic" mod points.

    8. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't you understand.

      No, just like you don't...

      To Trump's loyal followers, what Trump does is irrelevant.

      Nonsense, Trump has done and said several things that make me wince...

      What Trump has going for him is that he isn't Hillary, I look at her and say "well, whatever Trump's failings, at least he isn't evil like her".

      All that counts is that he hates Mexicans and Muslims

      He doesn't, but if you really think he does, that explains why you don't understand.

    9. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't you understand. To Hilary's loyal followers, what Hilary does is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Her actions, her behaviors, her history, they have no bearing on her fgitness and sutability. All that counts is that she has a (D) next to her name, and will do some vague things that will somehow make everything better.

    10. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's no one in politics that isn't a con man. I don't want the GOP to heal itself, I want it to go away. No matter what happens, Trump is just the figure that can result in that happening. The people who don't critique things the way I do and hate Trump will lump him in with the GOP and not vote for them and by my estimate be more likely to stay not voting for the GOP, while if Hillary gets elected, she'll keep making embarrassments like her Benghazi testimony and the server problem. I'm not sure of the situation around the actual Benghazi incident, but what I and other people do remember is the testimony. That is not someone I want as President. She is liable to turn off people lukewarm to the Democratic party, and while the Democrats aren't much better than the Republicans... Hmm, I really don't like the chances for the dissatisfied turning to other political parties, which is the state I want, no matter who gets elected. Hopefully they move to prosecute Hillary and Bernie becomes the political candidate. Not that great for turnover either, but at least important topics will come to the forefront. A Bernie presidency could show that ideas championed by other political parties might work. I want the Democrat party to go away, too, but not as much as I want the Republican party to go away. They are both a scourge to people being comfortable inside their own skin no matter their circumstances. The Republicans because they want to hurt people with differences they disapprove of, and the Democrats because their solutions for such people make them dependent on others to accommodate them in order to have a sense of well-being. In an ideal world there wouldn't be separate male and female bathrooms, but you don't need an Ideal world to be satisfied that you are you. If somebody came to me and said from now on I have to go to a bathroom that doesn't match who I see myself as, but everyone else continues as usual, that doesn't affect me much as a person and until everyone has that strength of self-identity, it is what I believe we should be striving for.

    11. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, Hilary and Bernie both have a voting record stretching back decades, the two records are virtually indistinguishable.

      That's a damn lie!

      First of all, Hillary was in Congress for eight years total, which for those of us who can do math, adds up to less than one decade. Bernie has been in Congress since 1991.

      Second, their records on things like gun control and foreign policy are almost diametrically opposed (and on every issue where they differ, Bernie gets it right while Hillary gets it wrong!).

      Third, Bernie has integrity, and has had the same platform for his entire career. Hillary is fucking corrupt and her platform blows with the political winds. She cannot be trusted.

      They are nothing alike, at all, whatsoever.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was going to go on about how their voting records differ, but voting records are a red herring like a lot of other things I can't recall right now on other issues, and I'll tell you why: If you can't use your vote as a bargaining chip for addressing other issues, you won't be very effective. There are a lot of things I remain silent about that I think are wrong so that I will be listened to when it comes to the root problems that need to be talked about for any lasting change. "Personality" isn't the key indicator, either. What topics you bring to the stage, is. My family has a somewhat conservative background. Historically, since Democrats used to be the party of labor, my ancestors used to vote for them. Now my relatives vote Republican. I don't interact with my father much, but I'd wager he's a DINO. The abortion issue is big with both sides. So much so, that it alone is enough to make my dad a DINO even though he probably is more liberal on personal traits than my mom. He is less forgiving when it comes to performance though.


      I watched Glenn Beck. Without him, I would have never heard of Cloward and Piven. From what I learned from him about them is actually pretty useful stuff, even though he doesn't agree with such tactics and tried to demonize them. I would haven't have heard of Che Guevara, not that great of a guy, I gather, but some of the things that Glenn Beck might have liked about the guy is bad. I listen to Tim Minchin and wish he could write a song that opened conservatives eyes, but he targets mainly liberals that also have bad ideas. I watch The Bible Reloaded and they make valid criticisms of the Bible, but my mom won't look past their conduct. The Armoured Skeptic I can at least get her down to watch because he doesn't cuss as much and otherwise conducts himself better. I hope you can see what kind of people I see in America and the kind of hurdles faced with getting good information to people who will listen at least a little bit. Certain kinds of conduct don't matter, personality doesn't matter to the people I see as the most information needy. Gamers are vocal about Samus in Other M about how she doesn't have the personality they want her to have, but she has the conduct of someone who the Americans I want to reach will accept and is on message, so I will promote her to them and defend her in face of critics because people who conduct themselves like her are people the demographic I want to reach will listen to. I find little to criticize in Samus's conduct when it comes to presenting her to that demo. The conduct of her critics, on the other hand, can be used as a reason why Samus is the good person here... for the demographic that has the flaws I can address. Trump and Bernie both conduct themselves better than Hillary in those areas, but some of the very things that Samus has that turns off gamers can appeal to the people I need to reach. Samus has military training. The gamers don't get military decorum. They see deference as weakness in Samus. I've run out of ideas and its getting kind of late where I'm at, so I feel like I'm not wrapping up properly and I feel sorry about that. But it is Slashdot. But you've conducted yourself decent. And now I've gone all Gollum.

    13. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Hillary's a shitty candidate, but she'll make a better president. It really is that simple.

      Well, no, she won't... what is sad is that so many people believe that...

      Bunch of idiots, the lot of you... know nothing about history, know nothing about the person, and don't care...

      You will see America destroyed with your attitude, and the sad part is you don't even know it...

    14. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe Trump himself doesn't hate Mexicans and Muslims, there's no real way to know. Trump continuously contradicts himself, he has never been in office and thus has no political record, maybe he just rants about Mexicans and Muslims because he wants to win votes from the demographic who fear the "other" out there. What I do know is that his supporters hate Mexicans and Muslims and are in fact involved in an incestuous relationship with White Nationalist groups. Look at pro-Trump forums that purport to oppose racism, antisemitism and xenophobia. They all use codified language borrowed directly from white supremacists who inherited that language. You'll frequently see them talking about "degeneracy" in the American people. This is a concept adopted from the Nazis. "Degenerates" is code for all non-white races and all non-heterosexuals. Take a look at how "cuckold" and "cuck" moved between Stormfront and Vanguard and the wider pro-Trump Internet. You can delude yourself all you want about Trump's actual views but the truth is that his campaign is built upon a base of white nationalism and xenophobia.

    15. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      He doesn't, but if you really think he does, that explains why you don't understand.

      You should let Trump's PR team know that they've largely overlooked Slashdot.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    16. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe Trump himself doesn't hate Mexicans and Muslims, there's no real way to know. Trump continuously contradicts himself, he has never been in office and thus has no political record, maybe he just rants about Mexicans and Muslims because he wants to win votes from the demographic who fear the "other" out there.

      All true points...

      This is a concept adopted from the Nazis.

      The irony is that I consider Hillary to be FAR closer to the Nazis than Trump is...

      If Hillary wins, then as far as I'm concerned, the system is no longer democratic and we have a failed nation. I will never accept her as President and instruct those in power to block everything and anything she does.

      We had Obama who was bad, but Hillary makes him almost look mild by comparison, she is MUCH worse than he is...

      We won't have a country much longer if this keeps up... in many respects, maybe we don't... Consider this VERY STORY about special interests and money... and yet all the idiots keep voting for people like Hillary who will only CONTINUE THAT!

      Will Trump stop it? I have no idea, but at least there is a CHANCE he would.

      Note: I'm against the system, I'd vote for Bernie over Hillary, and I think he is nuts, but at least he is an honest sort of nuts.

    17. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Strider- · · Score: 1

      It's hard to be certain which of what he says is a lie

      This is easy. If his mouth is open it's a lie.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    18. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What Stalin has going for him is that he isn't Hitler, I look at him and say "well, whatever Stalins's failings, at least he isn't evil like him. And he has a better moustache".

      FTFY.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      To quote the Russians at Leningrad in the winter of 1941, they were stuck between two dictators, but they prefered to pick the one who spoke Russian...

      I'll take my chances on Trump, Hillary will just drive this nation further down the hole, Trump might do it, or might not...

      Do you want to play Russian roulette with the revolver with 5 bullets in it, or 6?

    20. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      go read his platform so you don't look like a bafoon.

      Better idea - try a dictionary.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      You mean you would block Hillary from doing things,just like Republicans have blocked obama from doing things for 6+ years?

      I don't like Hillary but Hillary would galvanize the Republicans against her. Trump will bully Republicans into following him, or risk losing out. Oh sure they are distancing from him today, but if he gets the presidency, they will fall over themselves to support him 100%

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    22. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You mean you would block Hillary from doing things,just like Republicans have blocked obama from doing things for 6+ years?

      Yes, she is evil and evil must be opposed...

      I don't like Hillary but Hillary would galvanize the Republicans against her.

      Right, which is why the Democrats are morons for running her, they can't get anything done because she is hated so much...

      Trump will bully Republicans into following him, or risk losing out.

      And you know how Trump will do that? Because if the Republicans don't listen to him, he'll walk across the isle and do a deal with the Democrats...

      That is why you should want him, he loves doing deals, getting things done... the idea of sitting around for 4 years does NOT appeal to him...

      If you want Hillary, what you're really saying is you want more continuing resolutions, no solution to immigration, no solutions to jobs, no solutions to trade, more corporate welfare, more deals for big business...

      What amazes me is that for all the threads on Slashdot complaining about big business, taxes, global warming, etc. this forum is rather liberal and wants to elect someone who will do NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THAT... You think Hillary wants to stop oil and natural gas? Seriously? You think she wants corporate tax reform? Against the very people giving her tens of millions of dollars?

      Sure, half of what comes out of Trump's mouth is complete bullshit, but at least he has no problem telling idiots to go fuck themselves... Hillary won't do that, she'll instead lick their boots and say "yes please may I have some more sir" to the big money...

    23. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Ti me there is no difference between Hilary and Trump and Sanders, the end result is more collectivism, either socialism or fascism and I am against all forms of collectivism.

      Vote Gary Johnson.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    24. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Don't you understand. To Trump's loyal followers, what Trump does is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. His actions, his behavior, his history, they have no bearing on his fitness and suitability. All that counts is that he hates Mexicans and Muslims, and will do some vague things that will somehow make everything better.

      It isn't with many...so much as being Trump supporters, but more of "Anything but Hillary".

      For me, I'm getting more and more to be one of those single issue voters, and if for nothing else, Hillary scares the living shit out of me with the prospects of not only replacing Scalia, but potentially 2+ other Supreme Court justices.

      I think Trump would put more constitutionally leaning justices forward as candidates, then "H"....I want more strict constitutionalists in there rather than liberal or even politically right leaning justices. I want the constitution interpreted as close as possible to the founding fathers' intentions.

      I'm not a trump fan really....but at this point I see it as the lessor of two evils.

      I'm familiar with Hillary, I grew up with her being first lady in AR, and she was a cunt back then....all this you see now is NOTHING new. This is personality that has been with her as long as I've known her, and it has only gotten worse.

      I'd love to have a beer with Bill...but I'd not touch hillary with a 40-foot stick if my life depended upon it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    25. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      It's hard to be certain which of what he says is a lie

      This is easy. If his mouth is open it's a lie.

      Its even easier to tell if Hillary is lying...

      She doesn't have to even open her mouth....

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    26. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by CronoCloud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your viewpoint on what is or isn't "collectivism" is so skewed you think EVERYTHING that makes modern societies work is collectivism.

      No man is an island, not even you. YOU benefit from the government you hate so much, in fact as a business owner, you probably benefit MORE than others.

    27. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I want the constitution interpreted as close as possible to the founding fathers' intentions.

      Really? The aristocratic elitist plutocrats that basically started a revolution because they were greedy and were afraid of slavery being banned? Sure maybe the Yankees among them like Franklin really believed in democracy and representative government, but the Southerners like Jefferson and Washington?

      These were the fellows who crowed about freedom from tyrranny, but didn't eliminate slavery from the first even when they KNEW it was wrong. These were the guys who INTENTIONALLY had senators elected by state legislators to make sure that the Senate was composed of "the upper class" to serve as a sort of "house of lords" to limit the influence of what they called the rabble (basically everyone who wasn't a wealthy landowner) living in towns and cities.

      And they INTENTIONALLY set up government to favor large rural wealthy landowners.

      And you want the consitituion interpreted accordind to THEM?

    28. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The reason blue collar workers are in trouble is because of China, and now India. The immigrants, illegal or legal, are not stealing jobs, they're doing jobs no one else wants to do. Meanwhile the likes of Trump speak of a fantasy, a naive reimagining of life in a major industrialized country that is already, like so many industrial nations, well into the post-industrial phase.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Tenants of the world unite! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Don't you understand. To Hillary's loyal followers, what Hillary does is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Her actions, her behavior, her history, they have no bearing on her fitness and suitability. All that counts is that she takes money from the Saudis and Wall street, and does what they ask.

      I couldn't think of anything that people actually like about Hillary, personally, I can't see how anyone could like either of them, but remember that Hillary broke the law, and was sloppy with classified documents, ignored pleas from an ambassador to increase security, and let the ambassador be murdered while he requested backup.

      At least Trump hasn't screwed up so bad that he killed the first ambassador since 1979.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. nice ISP you got there by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Funny

    it would be a shame if something happened to it.

  3. Not an easy thing to do. by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While a good idea in theory, ultimately Telecom has a massive and very effective lobby. This also fails to address the very real problem you sometimes have in the Northeast where competing installers will cut or pull another guy's cable during an install, either to make room for theirs or out of a more childish nonprofessionalism in some parts of installer culture. However, there are plenty of ways to deal with that which do not stifle competition.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:Not an easy thing to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks Bush! Internet should not have been made an information service back in 2004. Common carrier would have been the proper choice but politics and lobbying dollars tilted the tables in the telecom's favor.

      As we learned the hard way (like Iraq), it takes a long time to roll back decisions basted in corruption.

      Captcha: ransacks

    2. Re:Not an easy thing to do. by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      I don't know why you are blaming Bush.. He had absolutely nothing to do with it. The FCC until recently took the position that the internet was always an information service until a court rejected the premise and made it a telecommunications service (subject to common carrier regulation) in which another court overturned that ruling taking it back to the original information service designation. Neither Bush nor congress or the FCC at the time had invested any regulatory or law making abilities in making that happen.

      There are a lot of things to criticize Bush over. We do not need to make things up because of your ignorance of the matter.

    3. Re:Not an easy thing to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're a fan of revisionism. Let me help you out:

      1) Back then, Michael Powell specifically said that opening cable lines up to competition might "discourage investment and innovation". Now that we have hindsight to rely on, that was exactly the wrong decision.

      2) Bush lawyers actively tried to overturn the 9th circuit court of appeals ruling that classifying as an information service was in direct conflict with the 1996 Telecom act. Google the appeal or pull up Lexis, the lawyers are listed there in black and white. I won't do your homework for you.

      Facts, not ignorance.

    4. Re:Not an easy thing to do. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely no revisionism. Perhaps English is not your first language or something so I will give you a pass on your complete ignorance but here are a few of your errors. First, it doesn't matter what Micheal Powell said, he used absolutely no regulatory power or procedure to change the classification from a telecommunications service to an information service (neither did Bush) as the idiot I originally replied to implied (probably you). Second, the Bush lawyers did nothing but kept the historical stance of the FCC since the late 1960s in which network communications were just starting to appear in telecommunications networks. They took the exact same stance the FCC under Bill Clinton took when they filed their briefs with the court saying it was an information service. Nothing was historically different.

      Nothing you said changes the fact that- Neither Bush nor congress or the FCC at the time had invested any regulatory or law making abilities in making that happen (the change in classification of the internet). It was the result of a court case in which the classification changed both times. The FCC held the exact same position consistently in all the court cases involved that it had historically held since before what you would consider the internet was actually around.

      Your facts seem to be born of ignorance. That or blind stupidity and hatred wanting to demonize someone at any costs that you actually believe the shit being made up. There is a reason you will not do my supposed homework. That is because you will not find any authoritative citations supporting your claim of Bush being behind it. You will if anything, find like minded idiot bloggers without the facts or links to real facts that refute the premise of Bush reclassifying the internet.

    5. Re:Not an easy thing to do. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I actually supported the Iraq war and think that it should have happened back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president. That being said, I did say that there was legitimate reason to criticize Bush for without making crap up. This is a legitimate criticism about something that actually happened and is presented in the context of the real situation.

      While I do not agree with your conclusion (hanging), I do not fault your accumulation of facts.

  4. My building does this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...and I live in Palo Alto, the heart of Silicon Valley.

    There are two choices of "broadband" here: Comcast, AT+T DSL.

    We are 15k feet from the substation. AT+T claims you can get "Up To 768 Kbps". Really? In 2016? To me that doesn't qualify as broadband. You pay $30 / month with a maximum of 300GB of data, and you probably see 1/3 of that speed at this distance.

    Which leaves Comcast as the only real choice. They are terrible and I hate them, but they offer 10Mbps for $39.99 / month which beats the pants of of the crappy DSL from AT+T. You can also step up to 25Mbps or 75Mbps and you come close to those actual speeds in speed tests. So what choice remains? There is fibre just a few miles from my house but nobody is running it out here because the building won't let them.

    1. Re:My building does this... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Does AT&T still have to offer a speed like that at the $20/month rate? I know they used to... They just weren't required to advertise it.

      Heart of silicon valley... I'm SURE the frequencies are congested there, but I'm also sure that's because they exist in great numbers out there.... Wireless ISP's? Some of them have pretty decent rates. http://www.wispa.org/Directories/Find-a-WISP

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:My building does this... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      That's not the landlord though. That's just the Bay Area. AT&T's "broadband" sucks balls everywhere here, meaning that Comcast is your only choice. If you work for one of the big tech companies many of them have deals that let you get teleworker service from Comcast, which is a lot better than the normal consumer grade crap they shovel.

  5. Apartment in Cali... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has Cox cable, don't want it. Called Dish Network, they said no problem for apartments as they have small dish units that hang out window or something. Install guy gets here and is told by maintenance guy that they can't install it, and to remove all others currently being used because cableco is already available to tenants (but not free). Slime bag landlords.

    1. Re:Apartment in Cali... by MrLogic17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have mod points, would rather educate.
      You have a lawsuit against your landlord. Federal law grants you the right to mount a dish.
      I have personally fought a home owners association, and won.
      https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

    2. Re:Apartment in Cali... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      I agree, possible lawsuit. I've read into it many times.Hanging out of the window might do the job...

      They are allowed to have them out of site, on the roof, on their "reasonably private" patios etc, but supposedly not allowed to hang them on the outside of the building attached to the exterior...

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    3. Re:Apartment in Cali... by irving47 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tell your installer and Dish to ignore the maintenance guy. Read the website that MrLogic posted... It informs you of what your rights are. If they start removing multiple dishes from account holders, Dish may just handle it for you...

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    4. Re:Apartment in Cali... by TroII · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd suggest getting a 5 gallon bucket, filling it with concrete, and setting a pole in the center. Once the concrete cures, schedule the dish guy to come out and attach the dish to the pole. It's unsightly as fuck, which is a nice way of giving the finger back to the landlord. Once potential renters start telling him they're put off by all the ghetto looking satellite buckets, maybe he'll reconsider.

      --
      "If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
    5. Re:Apartment in Cali... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, is the 5 gallon bucket in your apartment or out the window? Does the poll point straight up and down and they attach a mast to that or is it angled out the window?

    6. Re:Apartment in Cali... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, FCC hires you a lawyer and they always win.

    7. Re:Apartment in Cali... by adolf · · Score: 2

      The law in question has nothing to do with whether the dish is visible or not.

      It just has to be on property that you're renting, that would reasonably considered to be for your own use. A private patio or deck is a good example. It can't go on common property -- eg, on the porch of a shared entryway.

      This can be problematic on shared apartment buildings, as not every apartment has a suitably private spot. It's a no-brainer for things like rental houses and just about any duplex, however.

      And it's not just satellite dishes. It goes for any sort of antenna intended to receive broadcast signals, including OTA aerials.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
  6. Same in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In mainland China we had the same issue. We were paying about 10,000rmb a year ($2000 US) for awful slow broadband (5mbps fibre). After 5 years we noticed we could see our house from the office, so we bought two antennas and wireless APs and beamed our fast 100mbps home internet which cost 1600rmb per year ($320) and ran the entire office off of that. Commercial building lockdown should be illegal

  7. Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by mattmarlowe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There may be situations where a landlord has a good reason to limit who is accessing and modifying the cable/wire infrastructure of a property - so, a blanket ban on such is probably not a good idea.

    On the other hand, I don't have any problem with banning the kickbacks/payments that encourage the practice at the cost of renter choice.

    1. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by gumbi+west · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. The land lord provides access to your front door, water, sewer, electric. While providing all of these things might be inconvenient for them and there may be good reason for the land lord to not provide them... they still have to just provide them. Similarly, providing IT infrastructure is a must. These other services were added to old buildings, some ethernet cable can be too. For new buildings, you're insane if you don't keep some extra conduits for the next thing you're going to want to run and failure to plan isn't really an excuse--it's just a stupid tax that you now have to pay.

    2. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      There may be situations where a landlord has a good reason to limit who is accessing and modifying the cable/wire infrastructure of a property

      Curious -- what kind of reasons? What's a good reason for which a landlord would allow Comcast to come modify the cable infrastructure but not, say, Time Warner? I honestly can't think of any.

    3. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      There are thousands of reasons. They're printed on green pieces of paper.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    4. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where I lived, there was a long period during which you didn't want a TWC installer coming in and working unsupervised. They are (were?) generally subcontractors and at that time the quality varied very wildly--and unless you had already weird cable, you really had little chance of knowing the quality of who was going to get dispatched to you...and the bad ones did more than just leave you with no working cable.

      This is a legitimate reason for a landlord to ban them: "This company's installers have a tendency to do unnecessary property damage, and while some may be competent or better there's no way to ensure we get any of those."

      The better solution of course is for the companies to do what the local TWC did: start actually being careful about ensuring your installers are actually competent...

      Long-term, it ought to be possible by now to get it so a cable or satellite installer doesn't need to do much alteration to the building's structure--have it built into the walls like electrical wiring, so an installer's simply dealing with plugging things in, with all new lines being outside the building...which would solve the problems bad installers cause, eventually.

    5. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Water, sewer, and electric are easy because they're utilities. As a landlord, I only need to connect those up to one system and everyone is good to go. That's not the case for ISPs. Some are DSL, some are cable, some are fiber, some are WLAN. (The DSL is not a problem because it runs straight to the tenant's phone, and switching DSL ISPs is transparent for the landlord.)

      It's the same reason local governments granted cable monopolies - from a physical hardware perspective, it's not very practical to lay down a dozen different redundant cable networks throughout the town just so everyone can pick from a dozen cable ISPs. Likewise, it's burdensome for an apartment to provide a dozen different network connects for different ISPs on the off chance some of their tenants might use them. Especially if it's an older apartment whose "server closet" is just a metal box with a couple 110 blocks and a small DSLAM in it. Most older apartments (and hotels) use internal DSL from their phone box to the individual units precisely because it didn't involve having to install new cable (Internet runs over existing phone lines). And cable Internet works with a single provider because the entire building is rigged up branching off of a single coax cable. But in-building coax won't work with two cable ISPs unless you lay down two parallel coax networks.

      I just finished installing ethernet to the individual units of the building I co-own (commercial property with a dozen tenants). It was a PITA installing new conduit, and for how much it cost I won't see a return on investment for over a decade. And I got it done fairly cheaply because I did it myself. If I'd hired someone to do it I'd probably be looking at a multi-decade ROI, plus we'd have to hire someone to occasionally manage/fix the switching hardware if I didn't know how to do it myself. (I would've loved to have gone the DSLAM route, but our phone junction box was outdoors with no room to add a DSLAM, much less multiple drops from multiple ISPs. So we partitioned a janitor's closet to make a "server closet" and pulled all the ethernet to there. We got lucky in that there was a crawlspace along the top front of the building where the electrical lines for the businesses signs run. I installed the conduit there, but it was not fun going through 1/8 mile of crawlspace on my hands and knees multiple times.)

      For new buildings, I completely agree with you. Install conduit and ethernet from the get-go.

    6. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

      this post is about not letting the ISP do all that work. If they want to pull a bunch of cable, why stop them?

    7. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by Strider- · · Score: 1

      But in-building coax won't work with two cable ISPs unless you lay down two parallel coax networks.

      No reason why you couldn't have different cable ISPs on different frequencies on the one cable. This is just another reason why the content and internet service should be completely severed from the company operating the physical plant. Yeah, your physical plant (either twisted pair, coax, or fiber) is a natural monopoly. There's no reason why the content and/or internet service has to be.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    8. Re:Limiting providers fine - kickbacks no by Zipo+Bibrok+5e8 · · Score: 1

      No reason why you couldn't have different cable ISPs on different frequencies on the one cable.

      Actually, there is. Modern cable companies use the entire usable frequency range of a coaxial cable. From 5-900 mhz, there's either upstream or downstream communication between the devices in a home and the cable distribution node for the neighborhood.

      Two cable companies could not feasibly share the same wiring unless you only wanted half as much internet speed and half as many TV channels.

      --
      -- The Brory Stool Co.: We accidentally the best stools from behind seven proxies, since 2009.
  8. Helps Answer The Question by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Own or Rent ?

  9. Re:That is beyond stupid in a bad way by irving47 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you're taking into account the difference between "not knowing" and "getting paid to allow the provider exclusive access" in some form or another.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  10. Not just network service; cable tv too. by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    Time Warner has got an almost complete stranglehold on the residential market in LA due to these shady anti-competitive actions. All they have to do is convince the landlord to agree to claim that new network service installs would leave unnecessary extra holes in the walls (even when its not true, though usually this is technically true.)

    1. Re:Not just network service; cable tv too. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure why there aren't low power level wireless devices that can penetrate into these building from say a block away or so. Then competitors who come across a locked situation like this could place a device on the utility pole or the utility service box and not need to run wires on the property.

      The downside would be a shared connection that might eventually become saturated but cable providers could possibly use something with enough bandwidth to deliver tv service also making it minimal. We certainly have the tech available and if low power is used, the same frequencies could be deployed in multiple parts of the town. The renter might need to place a box near a window ledge or something to get signal but from there, it should be as normal as regular networking through their router and stuff.

      I'm just not sure why this isn't being deployed unless there isn't really enough demand/money to make it feasible.

    2. Re:Not just network service; cable tv too. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Well in the US I suspect its due to those parts of the spectrum more useful for such things being already tied up by existing cellular providers who are either squatting on it (doing nothing, perhaps waiting to resell it after it accumulates value unused for a few decades) or else do provide such services, but at really rather more cost for the equivalent bandwidth.

  11. Sooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's much better to take millions directly from foreign governments, while actively serving in office, amirite?

  12. How is this not an exclusive agreement? by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    I don't see how this is not an exclusive agreement.

    Yes, it's not an agreement in writing, but the landlord and the ISP clearly agree that no other ISP will be able to sell to tenants. How is that not exclusive?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. Apparently... by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

    everyone thinks that if this is specifically outlawed, everyone will be cool with it, and the landlords won't do anything to recoup the lost income like, oh, say, raise rents

    1. Re:Apparently... by PaulRivers10 · · Score: 1

      The kind of landlords making these agreements already charge rent based on what they call "fair market value" which is basically whatever they think they can get people to pay that will maximize their profit. These kind of landlords are going to charge exactly the same kind of rent regardless of whether they get comcast kickbacks or not because their rental prices are not determined by their costs in any way to begin with.

  14. SPAM submission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    https://slashdot.org/submissio...

    https://slashdot.org/submissio...

    https://slashdot.org/submissio...

    Slashdot survives on readers' submission and over the years I have done my share of submissions

    Whenever I submit an article, I submit articles that I think is interesting, something which is related to 'tech', something for the geeks to enjoy, as the geeks make up a large part of the Slashdot reader base

    Something must have happened in Slashdot recently, however --- All 3 of my most recent submissions have been tagged as "SPAM"

    I am putting up the links to the 3 "spam submissions". You guys decide if they are spam, or not

    FYI, I never expect all my submission to be adopted

    I recognize that the editors have the final say on which submission to use, which to reject

    Anyway, anyone else experience the same treatment?

    I am posting as AC because they have locked up my account and not letting me to use it to post comment any more

    Info of my account is at https://slashdot.org/~Taco+Cow...

    Just in case you need to know if any of my submissions were ever accepted, here are a few examples

    https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    https://slashdot.org/story/16/...

    https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

    And yes, in my account, my karma is still rated as *EXCELLENT*

    1. Re:SPAM submission? by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      I agree with this. You have the article in the summary. tl;dr

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  15. A better idea by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

    In France, when an operator installs broadband in a building, after 6 month, he must allow competitors to rent the lines for a regulated price. This was done to avoid the situation where some buildings had fiber from multiple operators where others had nothing.
    It can be useful as a way to prevent the landlord-isp-tenant conflict since once the building is cabled, there is no need for other operators to access it.

    BTW, this rule didn't prevent operators from investing and I would't be surprised if it was a EU-wide decision.

    1. Re:A better idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how it works but I think we have a similar thing in the Netherlands. I have a cable going to my apartment. That gives me the choice of going with any cable provider. There's no lock-in that I can see.

      Incidentally in my house in Australia it's the opposite. We have Foxtel and Optus in the street as well as NBN. This means in addition to having power coming into my house overhead I also have 2 overhead lines for cable companies going to two grey boxes with 2 different cable routes through the house (legacy reasons that I haven't changed).

      A tenant of mine complained that he couldn't get Foxtel in the living room. Oh that's the Optus outlet you need to plug your TV into the cable connection on the other side of the room. Stupid situation.

  16. Switch to mobile by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    Just like with phone landlines, dump those piss poor "broadband" wired lines and go for 4G mobile data. Not perfect, I know, but it sounds like the wired offerings are worse and more expensive. Mobile data is getting cheap fast - or do you guys also have cartels there?

    1. Re:Switch to mobile by jetkust · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on this. I can only get AT&T Uverse and they pretty much suck. I dropped them for a prepaid T-Mobile hotspot and HD antenna tv. They asked me why I was canceling and I told them because I have no confidence you can even provide your own service. They didn't have much to say after that.

      It's more expensive at the moment, but theres no way I'm going back. The reliability and freedom of home mobile is just too good. I don't have to deal with incomprehensible billing practices. I don't have to waste hours on the phone talking to a guy who desperately wants me to unplug and replug my modem for a full hour only to schedule an appointment with a tech (which I already knew was the outcome). I don't have to waste a whole Saturday waiting for a tech who does nothing for an hour as I stare out a window with a tear in my eye. If anything stops working, I know I can get it back working pretty fast. New sim card, new hotspot, new account, new carrier. Whatever works, as long as I don't have to spend one more second on the phone with a guy telling me to unplug and replug my modem.

    2. Re:Switch to mobile by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      The problem is congestion, there is only a fixed amount of wireless spectrum that must be shared by everyone in the area, while any number of physical lines can be installed. If everyone starts using wireless then the performance will get worse across the board.
      Wired should be used whenever possible, leaving more wireless spectrum free for those cases when wired isn't possible.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  17. Re:It's just part of the rent. Renters shuld be aw by TroII · · Score: 2

    So what if the building allows only one ISP?

    It's anticompetitive and expressly illegal, that's what.

    --
    "If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
  18. try RICO, it's the cat's pajamas . by swell · · Score: 1

    No, not Lucy's Ricky, but RICO (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) a law originally intended to go after Mafia syndicates. It basically makes decision makers responsible when a criminal conspiracy is uncovered.

    But recently it has been applied to a wide variety of conspiracies. From Wikipaedia* or thereabouts "In April 2000, federal judge William J. Rea in Los Angeles, ruling in one Rampart scandal case, said that the plaintiffs could pursue RICO claims against the LAPD, an unprecedented finding."

    If ISPs and property owners are conspiring against tenants, RICO is worth a try. There are probably other conspiracies that slashdotters are aware of too- like the recent 'no compete' agreement between the big Silicon Valley employers that was frowned upon. The world is full of racketeers, but many have connections that protect them.

    *Wikipaedia (or Wikipædi) is a wab-foondit, free beuk o knawledge (or encyclopaedia) that oniebodie can chynge gif thay like. Wikipaedia haes aboot 24 million airticles, but no monie in Scots.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  19. What's in it for the landlord? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    What's the landlord's incentive to disallow access to a company wanting to install a utility for the tenant if the landlord isn't getting some kind of price break on their own utilities in exchange for an effective monopoly ?

    The FCC's regulations prohibit such price deals, so why would a landlord participate in keeping a monopoly going when there's nothing in it for them?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:What's in it for the landlord? by Phasedshift · · Score: 1

      Frequently property managers get $X for every sign-up they refer to the provider. I provided wireless internet years ago, and this was somewhat common for larger complexes in Massachusetts. Additionally, many property managers/landlords are wary of having anyone new offer services, because realistically it is a lot less "risk" to say no in most cases than to say "yes" and have someone destroy your wiring closet, put a phone tap in, etc.

      Remember, in most states there is no license for providing internet service and outside of major cities most broadband is provided under resold infrastructure from the telephone company. Meaning, that other than wireless internet, most of the time the actual installer that needs access to a wiring closet (which is the only time this is even an issue) is going to be from the "local telephone company" anyway. Outside of major cities, this "kickback" issue is mainly a problem for smaller telecoms and wireless internet providers that are less likely to be known to the property managers.

    2. Re:What's in it for the landlord? by swb · · Score: 2

      My guess is that it would be the standard excuse -- I don't want more mess from installers boring holes.

      I'm sort of sympathetic to it, as people doing installs for utilities are often low-rent subcontractors paid in a way where they have every incentive to bang the fucking job out as quickly as possible with as little consideration for the property as possible.

      Plus, I would imagine a lot of landlords who aren't big commercial companies with full sized maintenance staff want to maximize rental income. Paying someone to even supervise to make sure the installers can get in, don't wreck the place, etc. lowers their income.

      On the other hand, rents do have a cyclical nature and keeping a building desirable for tenants when the rental market sucks would seem to benefit forward thinking landlords who realize that easy upgrades to new utility technologies will allow them to keep rents higher and get better tenants. So they should be figuring out how to make it possible to add new services without shredding the building.

      I'm surprised nobody has made money wiring rental buildings for ethernet and then managing multiple telecom services for landlords. The tenant can pick whoever and the utility only has to terminate in the building wire center. The landlord keeps his building intact and tenants can have their pick of technology.

    3. Re:What's in it for the landlord? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Frequently property managers get $X for every sign-up they refer to the provider

      It's my understanding that sort of thing is what the FCC prohibits... if nothing else, the provider would get in trouble unless they were fudging their own books and lying about where money was going without getting caught.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    4. Re:What's in it for the landlord? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      people are, on average, don't care, or notice, that their internet sucks as long as they can watch netflix. and if you live in a fancy building in NYC, you're either a multimillionaire or daddy is footing the bill (or both), so you won't feel the pinch there either.

      someone not in china or dubai really needs to build a new and better city.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    5. Re:What's in it for the landlord? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      How does disallowing access for utility companies that the landlord might not want on his property keep tenants, exactly?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  20. Phones in Hotels by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    This stinks like phones in hotels. Adding a huge surcharge to any long distance calls.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Phones in Hotels by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Does anyone even still use those, other than for internal calls?

      By the way in my area it's normal for 4/5 star hotels to provide mobile phones for clients, with unlimited local calls, unlimited calls to various international destinations and unlimited data. Included with the room.

  21. The irony is that half of you idiots complaining by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Funny

    The irony is that half of you idiots complaining will vote for Hillary Clinton, who is 100% guaranteed to not only continue this, but do MORE of it for her Wall Street Buddies...

    Now I have no idea if Trump would do anything to stop it, but there is at least a CHANCE... Even Bernie would be better than Hillary... (and I think Bernie is nuts! But I also think he is an honest nuts, and I can live with that)

    But go ahead, rant at how evil companies are, then keep voting for the same idiots in office over and over...

    NOTE: This applies to both the R's and the D's, Paul Ryan isn't any better than Nancy Pelosi in this regard... So I'm not playing favorites there...

  22. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hillary will be just like Obama, that is exactly why I vote for here. Obama accepts wall street donations. Obama accepts pharma donations. Obama accepts big oil donations. Obama accepts cable co donation. But Obama has not been bad president for any of these reasons. I dont mind 4 more years (or 8 more years) of Obama alike.

    Now I have no idea if Trump would do anything to stop it, but there is at least a CHANCE

    That is exactly the problem. Trump could make it better. Trump could make it worse. Trump could make it far better. Trump could make it far worse. There is no way of knowing anything. It like voting an 8 ball as the president. An 8 ball is not hillary, it has that going for it, right?

  23. Tenant should team up with tenant by premtemp · · Score: 1

    Perhaps time for tenants to team up, tenants should agree to share connection through wifi. It is expensive to directly fight the vested interests landlords-ISPs.

  24. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    But Obama has not been bad president for any of these reasons. I dont mind 4 more years (or 8 more years) of Obama alike.

    No, he has been a terrible President for lots of other reasons... :)

    You may not mind 4 more years of him, but you would if you understood what was happening to America in the process... unless of course, you WANT that to happen to America, I suppose those people exist too..

    America has become diminished, less, in the eyes of the world and in itself in the past 8 years. I am no longer proud of my country and now see it for the falling power that it once was.

    And this is sad, because so many men fought and died to get us here, and now so many are willing to throw that all away...

    You won't know what you've got until it is gone, then it will be too late...

  25. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

    America has only become better during Obama's tenure. I certainly am proud of my country.

    America has become diminished, less, in the eyes of the world and in itself in the past 8 years. I am no longer proud of my country and now see it for the falling power that it once was.

    And this is sad, because so many men fought and died to get us here, and now so many are willing to throw that all away...

    If more people have to die, just to make you proud of your country, I dont think I can support that.

  26. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    The real irony is that you're calling out others while you think this is a problem solved by selecting a different figurehead in a broken system of government.

  27. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    America has only become better during Obama's tenure. I certainly am proud of my country.

    You have a funny idea of what "better" means...

    The sad thing is, like I said, you won't know what you've lost until it is gone...

    If more people have to die, just to make you proud of your country, I dont think I can support that.

    You make my point, you simply don't get it... It is unlikely I could say anything to help you since you probably aren't open to learning anything. You would rather reinforce your existing viewpoint rather than open your mind to something new.

  28. Had this happen at the last apartment I rented... by Chas · · Score: 1

    Was tooling along, happy as a clam on cable at the time.

    And we get a notice that the landlords are kicking Comcast out of the building and turning control over to some no-name (Suite Solutions) DSL and Satellite reseller.

    What's more, they hadn't even notified Comcast about it yet!

    It got fought in the courts for about a year and a half and then boom. No more Comcast.

    So I had a couple years' slog with DSL (bought straight from AT&T so as not to pay the Suite Solutions markup) until I finally got fed up with that, and other situations, and moved the fuck out.

    Basically, if you require fast, dependable Internet access, DO NOT rent at The Towers In Four Lakes in Lisle, IL.

    I'm currently on another property by the same management company, and yeah, they're pushing AT&T U-Verse REAL hard.
    But at least they're not interfering with me and my 150Mbit cable connection...They do, I'm gone.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  29. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    The real irony is that you're calling out others while you think this is a problem solved by selecting a different figurehead in a broken system of government.

    I'd rather try a new figurehead who at least might toss out the bums, before tossing out the entire Government... Putting Hillary in office does nothing, it just continues the existing path we've been on for many years...

    Removing them all will be ugly before it gets better, and isn't a decision to be taken lightly... We aren't there yet, but I can see it happening within my remaining lifetime if we don't change course...

    ---

    Since WWII, we've had 2 or 3 really good Presidents, and a lot of bad ones... Congress is a problem as is money in government...

  30. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

    You make my point, you simply don't get it... It is unlikely I could say anything to help you since you probably aren't open to learning anything. You would rather reinforce your existing viewpoint rather than open your mind to something new.

    The problem you dont have a point, I cant get your point if you dont have one. In what ways has America become worse than it started in the last 8 years. What makes you not so proud of America. You dont say anything, and you expect me to telepathically understand your point, and you blame me for not getting your point? Well, looks like we have found what America's problem is. It is this.

    You have a funny idea of what "better" means...

    Touche

  31. Different issue in Canada by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    Instead we have 4 internet company that mange to own all the lines.

    You have 4 telecom companies and that's it. Shaw, Rogers, Telus, Bell. They all treat you rather poorly when it comes to price gouging since they have the market cornered. Even Shaw and Rogers traded assets, basically western canada and eastern so they don't compete with each other, so each company can suck as much as they can out of someone with no viable alternatives.

    5 MBIT connection runs you around 55$ now.

  32. A problem the free market could never solve by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    A libertarian utopia would be rife with deals like these, and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it. Landlords could do the same for (separate) TV and phone service too if they liked.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  33. You can't even get local governments to stop.... by DewDude · · Score: 1

    What makes you think landlords are? How many franchise agreements for an area out there include language that block any other provider?

    The idea we live in a free market economy is just jerking off capitalists. There is no free market; you're only free to do as the market demands.

  34. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Oh I agree. But it's the system which wreaks the efforts of even those who are capable. The wholesale removal of all people in congress would be a great start to changing things.

  35. Since when... by PapaSurf · · Score: 1

    Did you ever have a choice of CATV providers like comcast, for your broadband, except in rare circumstances? If the building has telephone service then you'd have same choice as nearly everyone else; DOCSIS or DSL

  36. Also Condominiums by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    My condo signs contracts that cause every unit to be billed $35. per month regardless of the fact that many owners only spend a few weeks a year in their units. Snowbirds keep condos here for the worst weeks of winter up north as an escape from the cold. That $35 dollars a month gets a cheaper bill for all residents and we can not stop anyone from also getting a dish to access other programming. But most people simply do not want to pay for a dish service and a cable service so the effect is that Comcast gets 100 percent of our business and all other companies account for next to nothing. The posture was taken in order to discourage owners from installing dishes on the property. And it works. Very, very few owners have dishes.

  37. Re:I can't. Account has been blocked by evilviper · · Score: 1

    You don't have to post a comment. E-mail the buggers.

    feedback@slashdot.org

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  38. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    America has become diminished, less, in the eyes of the world and in itself in the past 8 years.

    Says who? You? Why? You're talking about the nation that with a few allies pretty much runs the ENTIRE PLANET. A Cultural, Technological and Information Hegemony like you wouldn't believe. Even in nations that supposedly "hate" us, they consume our media!

    Do you actually think a few terrorists attacks diminished us? There are over 300 MILLION people in the US. They're like the buzzing of flies, no real threat.

  39. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Oh I agree. But it's the system which wreaks the efforts of even those who are capable.

    It would take a "strongman" to do it, but so often those turn bad (see: most of them in history)...

    The wholesale removal of all people in congress would be a great start to changing things.

    It will, sadly, take another war to do that, I don't see a peaceful path forward to do it.

    Which is a shame...

  40. Re:The irony is that half of you idiots complainin by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Damn, I can't wait until this horrible election is over with and we can stop getting political comments on every damned story.

  41. Two sets of pipes so you can choose water sources? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    That's the problem. Some things become a natural monopoly unless you're willing to spend a LOT of money. Well, no, the real problem is that building managers - like hotel phone service managers before most guests had cellphones - start to see everything as a profit center, including something that they aren't even paying costs for. For buildings that existed before cable, someone chose ONE cable company to come and retrofit cable everywhere, so it's a monopoly; for newer construction, with cable preinstalled, there is still only one cable preinstalled.