The ISP Monopoly Game: When Your Landlord Decides Your Internet Destiny
The latest FCC decision about landlords and internet service providers has sparked quite a discussion online, though I must say the headlines floating around are more dramatic than the reality. What’s really happening is the FCC has decided not to ban bulk billing arrangements for internet services in rental properties - essentially maintaining the status quo we’ve been living with for years.
Living in an apartment complex in South Yarra, I’m quite familiar with this dance. Our building came pre-wired for a specific provider, and while technically we could request another ISP to come in and install their infrastructure, good luck getting that approved by the body corporate. It’s reminiscent of the NBN rollout drama, just on a smaller scale.
The frustrating part isn’t just the lack of choice - it’s the principle of the thing. When you’re already paying a premium for rent, being forced into a specific internet contract feels like another way property managers are tightening their grip on tenants’ lives. Some of the stories I’ve read online about excessive late fees and mandatory payment portals with surcharges are enough to make your blood boil.
The reality is that this issue goes beyond just internet access - it’s symptomatic of the broader power imbalance in the rental market. While some suggest mobile internet or 5G as alternatives, that’s not always practical, especially for those of us working from home. My daughter’s online studies alone would burn through a mobile data cap faster than you can say “bandwidth throttling.”
The telecommunications landscape is changing rapidly with technologies like Starlink entering the market, but these alternatives aren’t necessarily viable for everyone, especially in urban settings. The argument that “you signed the lease” holds little water when every apartment complex in the area has similar restrictions. It’s a bit like saying you have the freedom to choose between breathing and not breathing.
What’s particularly concerning is how this intersects with the rising cost of living. When you’re locked into a specific provider, there’s no opportunity to shop around for better deals or take advantage of new customer promotions. It’s yet another example of how being a renter often means paying more for less choice.
Looking at my own situation, I’m fortunate enough to have decent internet speed, but I can’t help thinking about the broader implications for digital equity. In a world where internet access is increasingly essential for work, education, and basic participation in society, shouldn’t we be making it more accessible rather than less?
The solution isn’t simple, but it probably starts with better regulation of the rental market and telecommunications sector. Until then, we’re stuck playing this monopoly game where the landlord always seems to hold the “Collect $200” card.
The silver lining? The growing awareness and discussion around these issues might eventually lead to change. In the meantime, I’ll keep documenting these stories on my blog, hoping that somewhere, someone in power is paying attention to how these policies affect real people in real apartments across our cities.
For now, I’m heading to my home office to continue working on some DevOps tasks, grateful that at least my current internet connection is stable enough for video calls, even if I’m paying more than I should for it.