[vel0city]

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."

[logfromblammo]

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...

[lotsofpulp]

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

[logfromblammo]

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?

[s73ver_]

Violent armed revolution?

[jessaustin]

Finally!

[ni-hil]

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