Hacker News Reader

Comment by yobrien | Hacker News Reader

My apartment complex has a contract with AT&T. I either have ATT or I don't have anyone. I can't be "gone". I just have to suck it up and pay unless I want to go to the library for basic internet then.

View on HN

Talk to your neighbors and offer to split the internet bill. This doesn't solve the long-term problem, but at least it hurts the local internet monopoly.

I really like your idea, but it has legal implications (accountability) because your neighbours would end up doing things on the internet on your account or vice versa.

I would suggest to do this in combination with a VPN but 1) even with OpenVPN those are often insecure 2) they cost additional money 3) with these new FCC rules their bandwidth might get limited.

If your ISP cracks down, you can always go to the local Starbucks or library to torrent movies. And since the few people who share the WAP all know each other, they can talk things out.

Not if the library or Starbucks have an ISP with similarly restrictive policies.

They generally don't. Try it.

WAP, Now that's a term I've not heard in a long time, a long time [1].

I don't know about Starbucks or the USA but many places here with open WiFi have, well, open WiFi (no encryption on connection) and they have abysmal speed. I mean we are talking about multiple customers, on 2,4 GHz WiFi, in the neighborhood (city) with dense 2,4 GHz coverage. What could possibly go wrong?

Plus, indeed here that type of business is just on cable or DSL themselves. Who'd be under the scrutiny of the same QoS shenanigans. Then again, we got net neutrality. For the time being. I really hope the USA keeps net neutrality. The feeling that such a civilized, rich, advanced country would lose such an important right fills my eyes with tears.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol

WAP = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_access_point

If you visit the US, you will find that most internet access sucks, but that public libraries are surprisingly decent. You won't be playing "Call of Duty: Kill Nazis 2017" on it, but it's perfectly decent for most uses.

Oh, that. I always just call that AP. I'm glad you guys & gals got quality libraries on the other side of the pond. I can't speak for EU but here in NL they're dwindling both in quality as well as in size and amount. I find that problematic, as there are two big interest groups who benefit from public libraries: the poor, and the elder.

The US has a long history of supporting public libraries, e.g. the Carnegie libraries, which are often wonderful historic (by US standards) buildings[1]. Rather than holding stacks of physical books, modern libraries are a key source of information via the internet for many people today. In tiny rural towns, they are key parts of the community, and often surprisingly well-cared-for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library

From what I gather in the brief comment, the apartment complex only allowed AT&T to install cabling to the building, so those apartment buildings are only serviced by AT&T. The apartment complex will not allow another ISP to dig up their property to install internet service for tenants, leading to an exclusive AT&T monopoly. I've had friends in similar apartment buildings. Calling other ISPs operating across the street led nowhere, as those ISPs would just say "we do not service that address."

I think what he was suggesting was sharing one AT&T contract with his neighbors

FCC instituted rules in 2008 abolishing the payola-style deals that stifle ISP competition in apartment buildings [0], but in the biggest surprise ever, the apartment owners and would-be-monopolist ISPs have been avoiding compliance by hiding the exclusivity part of their contracts. The apartment owner simply leaves open the prospect that another ISP could install access, but never actually allows them to do so. Or they make the now-legally-unenforceable exclusivity clauses of their contracts severable, but those enforcing the entire contract never actually know which of the clauses in it are invalid. So the clauses continue to be enforced in practice, by people who do not know they should be ignored.

If you can't get competing services in your apartment complex, get a lawyer and sue the owner.

[0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280908A1.p...

Getting a lawyer and suing the owner is not a reasonable thing to ask of people living in apartments.

No, it isn't, but nor is it reasonable for an apartment owner to establish service monopolies on their property at the expense of their renters.

What alternative would you suggest?

Violent armed revolution?

Finally!

But what if someone in your neighbor's house likes to download torrent or visit sites that gets you into trouble. Wouldn't that be a huge responsibility?

"Sorry, someone cracked my password." Then kick the idiot off your wifi, just like you would deal with a bad house guest.

People also have the option of the cellular network via their phones, though that's not a true substitute for a wired ISP.

DSL (with VDSL pretty much FTTC), cable (also pretty much FTTC), LTE (if 50 ms latency and relatively low bandwidth cap is OK), and FTTH (if you're lucky and live in such an area) are the 4 options. It is going to be different everywhere in the USA (and world) but FTTH isn't available everywhere, and its not uncommon that either DSL or cable is unreliable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com