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

[South954]

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 ?

Uverse is not allowing you to add a new line, not the LL. It is unreasonable to ask an LL to cancel their service (possibly facing a penalty for early termination) so that you can have it instead.

 

[sandyclaus]

OP, as a former Southern California resident who had similar issues (most of the major cable/internet providers do it this way), I'm going to tell you straight up that you need to choose a different provider. Any single-family residence property with one address will have the same issue. The providers are the one that place the limitation of one service conduit into one property address. The LL has nothing to do with it, except for the fact that they were the ones who ended up with the sole AT&T U-verse conduit coming into the property. The providers don't make exceptions on this practice.

Case in point. I had a situation where I sublet a master bedroom in a house from the tenant who rented the house. When she failed to pay her share of a cable service that I had installed, I disconnected her outlets, leaving the master bedroom with the sole working outlets. Her response was to call said cable provider to try to get a 2nd line installed for her and her family, and they wouldn't do it. (They ALSO wouldn't disconnect MY service just to get service turned on in her name, after several failed attempts to do so.)

You're going to have to negotiate something with your LL to share the existing services and add the TV/cable component, or get your cable/internet service from a different provider. She is under NO obligation to turn hers off just so that you can get your cable fix.

Honestly, if you knew you were going to want cable/internet service, why didn't you figure all of this out before you moved in?

 

[TheGeekess]

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 ?

If you're using AT&T(with the LL piggybacking their DVR) and the service goes down, wouldn't you be trying to fix it anyway?

 

[neva1]

If you're using AT&T(with the LL piggybacking their DVR) and the service goes down, wouldn't you be trying to fix it anyway?

Well, the short answer is NO. But I might be willing to power it off and on for them but in no way, shape or form, I am going to troubleshooting a digital camera surveillance system. Especially something that makes me uncomfortable as far as my privacy goes. If the U-verse signal goes out, yes, I will get it fixed as my livelihood depends on a reliable and very high speed internet connection.

My problem is, while there is no U-verse problem on my end, for any reason, my LL can not get the pictures from the cameras and first thing they will do, is to call me. Knowing the intricacies of dealing with the less internet knowledgeable people, e.g., my elderly parents, it is not something I want to deal with, especially FREE OF CHARGE. My LL is very nosy and annoying. I get a call every 3-4 days about something so minuscule, but according to my LL, needs to be taken care of "right away". I am really tired in the less than 1 month of my tenancy. I made a mistake by renting this house but my significant other was hell bent on it and I was tired of living out of hotel rooms in the month prior to that and jumped the gun. Now, I am left with less than desirable conditions. And yes, I will leave this hell-hole but not for another 11 mo.s. So, I am trying to avoid paying extra money for things one takes for granted, like choice of cable TV service provider.

 

[Zigner]

Well, the short answer is NO. But I might be willing to power it off and on for them but in no way, shape or form, I am going to troubleshooting a digital camera surveillance system. Especially something that makes me uncomfortable as far as my privacy goes. If the U-verse signal goes out, yes, I will get it fixed as my livelihood depends on a reliable and very high speed internet connection.

My problem is, while there is no U-verse problem on my end, for any reason, my LL can not get the pictures from the cameras and first thing they will do, is to call me. Knowing the intricacies of dealing with the less internet knowledgeable people, e.g., my elderly parents, it is not something I want to deal with, especially FREE OF CHARGE. My LL is very nosy and annoying. I get a call every 3-4 days about something so minuscule, but according to my LL, needs to be taken care of "right away". I am really tired in the less than 1 month of my tenancy. I made a mistake by renting this house but my significant other was hell bent on it and I was tired of living out of hotel rooms in the month prior to that and jumped the gun. Now, I am left with less than desirable conditions. And yes, I will leave this hell-hole but not for another 11 mo.s. So, I am trying to avoid paying extra money for things one takes for granted, like choice of cable TV service provider.

Get satellite for your TV. Problem solved.

For $70 per month you can get 15/1 internet & satellite TV. (+ tax, of course)

 

[TheGeekess]

If you're using AT&T(with the LL piggybacking their DVR) and the service goes down, wouldn't you be trying to fix it anyway?

Well, the short answer is NO. But I might be willing to power it off and on for them but in no way, shape or form, I am going to troubleshooting a digital camera surveillance system. Especially something that makes me uncomfortable as far as my privacy goes. If the U-verse signal goes out, yes, I will get it fixed as my livelihood depends on a reliable and very high speed internet connection.

My problem is, while there is no U-verse problem on my end, for any reason, my LL can not get the pictures from the cameras and first thing they will do, is to call me. Knowing the intricacies of dealing with the less internet knowledgeable people, e.g., my elderly parents, it is not something I want to deal with, especially FREE OF CHARGE. My LL is very nosy and annoying. I get a call every 3-4 days about something so minuscule, but according to my LL, needs to be taken care of "right away". I am really tired in the less than 1 month of my tenancy. I made a mistake by renting this house but my significant other was hell bent on it and I was tired of living out of hotel rooms in the month prior to that and jumped the gun. Now, I am left with less than desirable conditions. And yes, I will leave this hell-hole but not for another 11 mo.s. So, I am trying to avoid paying extra money for things one takes for granted, like choice of cable TV service provider.

So you're saying that you don't need internet after all.

 

[davew128]

Get satellite for your TV. Problem solved.

For $70 per month you can get 15/1 internet & satellite TV. (+ tax, of course)

Presuming OP can get reception. Half of the apartments I've lived in either had no exclusive use area or couldn't get line of sight.

 

[Zigner]

Presuming OP can get reception. Half of the apartments I've lived in either had no exclusive use area or couldn't get line of sight.

What apartment?

 

[FarmerJ]

In urban areas do you not also have the option of doing DSL from phone co ? (beside a local wireless firm ) Cable is nice but it does not exist where I live and we chose to turn satellite off over a year ago so would a local phone co that has dsl also have a deal to bundle w satellite services ? BTW even though its not alot of power does your lease disclose to you that you are supplying the electricity to run the that equipment that you do not have direct use of ?

 

[Zigner]

In urban areas do you not also have the option of doing DSL from phone co ? (beside a local wireless firm ) Cable is nice but it does not exist where I live and we chose to turn satellite off over a year ago so would a local phone co that has dsl also have a deal to bundle w satellite services ? BTW even though its not alot of power does your lease disclose to you that you are supplying the electricity to run the that equipment that you do not have direct use of ?

Once AT&T (the local Telco) runs the UVerse line, they're not going to run a separate POTS line.

 

[tranquility]

In urban areas do you not also have the option of doing DSL from phone co ? (beside a local wireless firm ) Cable is nice but it does not exist where I live and we chose to turn satellite off over a year ago so would a local phone co that has dsl also have a deal to bundle w satellite services ? BTW even though its not alot of power does your lease disclose to you that you are supplying the electricity to run the that equipment that you do not have direct use of ?

DSL has some technical limitations on distance from the switching house. But, I don't think that is the issue. The OP does not want a solution, they want their own solution.

 

[sandyclaus]

In urban areas do you not also have the option of doing DSL from phone co ? (beside a local wireless firm ) Cable is nice but it does not exist where I live and we chose to turn satellite off over a year ago so would a local phone co that has dsl also have a deal to bundle w satellite services ? BTW even though its not alot of power does your lease disclose to you that you are supplying the electricity to run the that equipment that you do not have direct use of ?

IF their local phone company is AT&T, then they are swapping out DSL in favor of U-verse. They no longer offer either/or, it's one or the other.

 

[FarmerJ]

tranquility I live eight miles from the central switching office where land line telephone services come from and I have DSL too , the second level of service. And many urban areas have multiple cables so what Im getting at is this, see even in the town where the mail and phone n dsl comes from here in that town there are two sets wires one set is the indep phone co and the other is a catv & net and Phone provider, and have not seen any one order the phone co to cut its lines nor does the phone co remove them when a customer DCs even to switch to the other the lines are left alone and I cant see a more urban area doing it any different. SO its possible the OP may find a deal with dsl and satv that will meet his /her needs.

 

[neva1]

Once AT&T (the local Telco) runs the UVerse line, they're not going to run a separate POTS line.

I have confirmed this with the sales rep myself. Only one AT&T cable comes to premises. Regardless what kind of service you want to subscribe to, the physical feed is the same and can not be split into separate accounts.

 

[neva1]

Get satellite for your TV. Problem solved.

For $70 per month you can get 15/1 internet & satellite TV. (+ tax, of course)

From which outfit am I supposed to get this deal ? I am all ears. As far as I know, DIRECTV works with both Verizon and AT&T to resell their services for the internet and vice versa for the phone companies. So, I am on the same boat again : square peg, round hole; i.e., single cable from telco, which is already occupied.