Tricky situation about Cable TV/Internet service at my new rental house

[neva1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I moved in to my new house 4 weeks ago. Due to the hassle of moving and unboxing and ungodly southern California traffic, I didn't notice the pain of not having a cable tv service. Now that the things settled a bit, I want my boob-tube.

The only two service providers in my area are Time Warner Cable and AT&T Uverse. I hate TWC with a passion. Moreover they are about 50% more expensive than AT&T. I have very low opinions about AT&T as well but it is besides the matter. Lesser of two evil comes out to be AT&T in my case.

In one of my previous postings, I have mentioned my landlord has cameras installed around the house against vandalism blah-blah... Well, she also got subscribed to the U-Verse service from AT&T for internet connectivity.

Yesterday, I talked to the sales rep of AT&T Uverse and he consulted his installation techies and the word came down as, they can not put two Uverse gateways into one single dwelling.

Do I have a right to tell my landlord to go pound sand and disconnect her Uverse, so that I can sign up for that service under my name or am I SOL and have to go with more expensive TWC service ? In other words, what rights does my landlord have on my residence, other than checking and making sure I am keeping it safe and sound, in a reasonable frequency of visits ?

By the way, I checked my contract and there is nothing saying that I will leave her internet service alone. So, as far as I am concerned, she can go with TWC's cable modem service if sh is so adamant about watching her beloved cameras from afar.

Please help me out.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I moved in to my new house 4 weeks ago. Due to the hassle of moving and unboxing and ungodly southern California traffic, I didn't notice the pain of not having a cable tv service. Now that the things settled a bit, I want my boob-tube.

The only two service providers in my area are Time Warner Cable and AT&T Uverse. I hate TWC with a passion. Moreover they are about 50% more expensive than AT&T. I have very low opinions about AT&T as well but it is besides the matter. Lesser of two evil comes out to be AT&T in my case.

In one of my previous postings, I have mentioned my landlord has cameras installed around the house against vandalism blah-blah... Well, she also got subscribed to the U-Verse service from AT&T for internet connectivity.

Yesterday, I talked to the sales rep of AT&T Uverse and he consulted his installation techies and the word came down as, they can not put two Uverse gateways into one single dwelling.

Do I have a right to tell my landlord to go pound sand and disconnect her Uverse, so that I can sign up for that service under my name or am I SOL and have to go with more expensive TWC service ? In other words, what rights does my landlord have on my residence, other than checking and making sure I am keeping it safe and sound, in a reasonable frequency of visits ?

By the way, I checked my contract and there is nothing saying that I will leave her internet service alone. So, as far as I am concerned, she can go with TWC's cable modem service if sh is so adamant about watching her beloved cameras from afar.

Please help me out.

Get your own service.

Alternatively, why don't you try to develop a good relationship and offer to pay your LL a (reduced) amount to have access to the internet on the existing U-Verse.

I have to say...you sound like a real peach

 

[neva1]

Get your own service.

Alternatively, why don't you try to develop a good relationship and offer to pay your LL a (reduced) amount to have access to the internet on the existing U-Verse.

I have to say...you sound like a real peach

I don't understand the peach comment but anyways, I am willing to get my own service but I want it to be U-verse, signal line of which is currently being held hostage by my landlord.

The problem with offering my landlord a usage fee is, the current service is for internet only. I want Internet (and a much faster tier than the current, el-cheapo service) and the tv service bundled together. They are not going to subscribe to all of the above and let me use them for a lower service fee and I don't expect them to. Also, I make a living out of computers. Working from home at nights, over the weekends or occasional weekday is not out of the question. If this service goes down, I want to be able to talk to their customer service and tech support, without a 70+ years old person going as an intermediary. So, service has to be under my name. I can provide my landlord the service they are currently getting, at their current price point or lower, but I don't want to find myself in the role of *FREE* tech support for them, anytime they have a connectivity problem to the cameras. We are talking about old and computer illiterate people who got their first computer 3 months or so ago here. And they are NOSY. I want to limit my interaction to a minimal and at that, I see them almost every week and get a call for some small thing even more frequently than that. Is it too much to ask to be left alone to my own accord in a property I am paying fair or ever more than fair rent ?

 

[Zigner]

I don't understand the peach comment but anyways, I am willing to get my own service but I want it to be U-verse, signal line of which is currently being held hostage by my landlord.

The problem with offering my landlord a usage fee is, the current service is for internet only. I want Internet (and a much faster tier than the current, el-cheapo service) and the tv service bundled together. They are not going to subscribe to all of the above and let me use them for a lower service fee and I don't expect them to. Also, I make a living out of computers. Working from home at nights, over the weekends or occasional weekday is not out of the question. If this service goes down, I want to be able to talk to their customer service and tech support, without a 70+ years old person going as an intermediary. So, service has to be under my name. I can provide my landlord the service they are currently getting, at their current price point or lower, but I don't want to find myself in the role of *FREE* tech support for them, anytime they have a connectivity problem to the cameras. We are talking about old and computer illiterate people who got their first computer 3 months or so ago here. And they are NOSY. I want to limit my interaction to a minimal and at that, I see them almost every week and get a call for some small thing even more frequently than that. Is it too much to ask to be left alone to my own accord in a property I am paying fair or ever more than fair rent ?

Then I guess TWC is your option.

 

[LdiJ]

Get your own service.

Alternatively, why don't you try to develop a good relationship and offer to pay your LL a (reduced) amount to have access to the internet on the existing U-Verse.

I have to say...you sound like a real peach

Zig...their landlord is spying on them via the cameras. They have very little privacy.

 

[Zigner]

Zig...their landlord is spying on them via the cameras. They have very little privacy.

OP never said that. OP says the cameras are on the lookout for vandalism.

The OP sounds like s/he feels that s/he can impose his/her will on those around her willy-nilly.

The OP can't force the LL to give up her internet service because S/HE wants U-Verse. Period.

 

[STEPHAN]

You have 3 options:

1. Accept the fact that you cannot have U-Verse and find a different solution.

2. Wait until your contract is up and move. (Or move now and compensate your LL.)

3. Talk to you landlord and find a solution together.


As a LL I have so far always found a solution when a tenant approached me in a nice way and it made sense for me.

You will not be able to force your LL to give up his U-Verse.

 

[South954]

I don't understand how that gateway thing works but did you ask Uverse is there is any way for you to also get it.

It sounds to me like a cable company saying they can't add an extra cable line just for your apartment, but it doesn't mean you can't get cable.

Ask your LL is there is a way to share their connection and you will pay half.

 

[Zigner]

I don't understand how that gateway thing works but did you ask Uverse is there is any way for you to also get it.

It sounds to me like a cable company saying they can't add an extra cable line just for your apartment, but it doesn't mean you can't get cable.

Ask your LL is there is a way to share their connection and you will pay half.

AT&T will not install two services at the same single-family address. That is their policy and they are allowed to do that. The OP already asked and was told no.

Also, the OP doesn't want to "share" s/he wants his/her own.

 

[neva1]

AT&T will not install two services at the same single-family address. That is their policy and they are allowed to do that. The OP already asked and was told no.

Also, the OP doesn't want to "share" s/he wants his/her own.

I want my own because, my LL is computer and technology illiterate.

If I offer them to take over their internet service and have them pay me a fraction of what they are paying to AT&T, they will go for it, I am sure. But there is a big problem with that, when they are not able to get to the cameras for any reason, they WILL call me regardless what the problem is. I don't want that. I have enough IT troubled people I deal with day in and day out at work, I have very little time for myself when I am home. And I refuse to become tech support for the novice. (I did that in the past for my family and it ain't a single bit fun)

So, even though it is not in my lease contract, I can not use a telecommunication service, because of my landlord's choosing. Is my understanding right ?

 

[South954]

So, even though it is not in my lease contract, I can not use a telecommunication service, because of my landlord's choosing. Is my understanding right ?

You can, you said you can, you said you can get it and let the LL pay their part but you don't want to

You can, you can get cable.

Yes you can.

 

[neva1]

You can, you said you can, you said you can get it and let the LL pay their part but you don't want to

You can, you can get cable.

Yes you can.

Let us not get lost in the technicality of verbiage. You know what I meant. Let me be clearer : If I am not mistaken, I can not use the telecommunication service of my choice at a place, I am renting from someone for a fair amount of money, because they are not releasing the service to me, with no stipulation in the lease contract that, this will be the case.

I thought selection of telecommunication service is up to the resident of the house, unless a legally acceptable verbiage was put in the contract. I remember it from the satellite TV providers fighting against landlords, who didn't want dishes on their property. Now, it is legal to put up a dish on any place, as long as the installation of the dish doesn't damage the said property. This is the legally acceptable way I am talking about.

Let me put it in other words:

Can a landlord, arbitrarily chose to ban the legal tenant from acquiring any good or service at his or her discretion, regardless of the method employed doing so ? For instance, can the landlord tell me, I have to retain the services of a certain landscaper or can not acquire services of some other landscaper for no reason or for some reason which will give her some gain in some way ?

The point I am trying to convey is, the cameras were installed against vandalism, while the house is empty. Now the house is rented and people are living in it. The reason for the cameras to be active is no longer a necessity. (let's leave the invasion of my privacy aside for the moment) If the camera's are not a necessity, my landlord will not have a need for an active internet connection. But chooses to have one for no reason, preventing me from using the said connection. How is this fair or even legal ? The cable TV + internet service from U-verse is about $90/mo for me whereas the TWC is coming to $130. So, My LL's choice is jacking up my expenses a $40 every month. Can a LL do that without putting it in writing ?

 

[Zigner]

I'm sorry you don't like the answer. Good day.

 

[tranquility]

Let me put it in other words:

Can a landlord, arbitrarily chose to ban the legal tenant from acquiring any good or service at his or her discretion, regardless of the method employed doing so ? For instance, can the landlord tell me, I have to retain the services of a certain landscaper or can not acquire services of some other landscaper for no reason or for some reason which will give her some gain in some way ?

The point I am trying to convey is, the cameras were installed against vandalism, while the house is empty. Now the house is rented and people are living in it. The reason for the cameras to be active is no longer a necessity. (let's leave the invasion of my privacy aside for the moment) If the camera's are not a necessity, my landlord will not have a need for an active internet connection. But chooses to have one for no reason, preventing me from using the said connection. How is this fair or even legal ? The cable TV + internet service from U-verse is about $90/mo for me whereas the TWC is coming to $130. So, My LL's choice is jacking up my expenses a $40 every month. Can a LL do that without putting it in writing ?

The landlord is not banning you from acquiring anything; arbitrarily or not. Even though the answer to that might be yes, depending on the circumstances. Here, there is no such thing happening. They have a service. This is America and they are free to choose. Just because the service does not want to serve you because of the landlord's choice is hardly the landlord's fault. Other words and/or technicality of verbiage included.

 

[Proserpina]

Let us not get lost in the technicality of verbiage.

Given that this is a legal forum...

Can a landlord, arbitrarily chose to ban the legal tenant from acquiring any good or service at his or her discretion, regardless of the method employed doing so ? For instance, can the landlord tell me, I have to retain the services of a certain landscaper or can not acquire services of some other landscaper for no reason or for some reason which will give her some gain in some way ?

You've actually given a perfect example of what IS allowable.



STEPHANKOENIG gave you three very sensible options. Might be best to use one, versus doing everything you can to become a nightmare tenant.