Isps Angry About California Law That Lets Renters Opt Out of Forced Payments
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
arstechnica.comOtherstory
supportivepositive
Debate
40/100
Net NeutralityConsumer ProtectionLegislation
Key topics
Net Neutrality
Consumer Protection
Legislation
California has passed a law prohibiting landlords from forcing tenants to pay for ISPs they don't want, sparking anger from ISPs; the law is seen as a consumer protection measure.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
10m
Peak period
3
0-3h
Avg / period
1.5
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 15, 2025 at 5:18 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 15, 2025 at 5:28 PM EDT
10m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 17, 2025 at 3:32 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45598491Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:22:58 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I grant you, yes it can cause problems. I can see plenty of entitled people say things like "if we pay for the wires, the landlord reaps the benefits when we leave and some other tenant uses those wires we paid for". Sure. Or you think about it as being able to choose for yourselves and yes that comes with costs, whether you own the place or not. We're not talking thousands of dollars here.
Look, I don't live in California but we definitely did choose our own ISPs at all the place(s) we rented (multiple places, multiple different countries) and yes, we did have the ISP come have their actual "physical wire provider" come out and run the line and we paid whatever fee was necessary for that (unless the ISP did) and the landlord was absolutely involved exactly zero percent of that. Because it meant we could get the kind of line we wanted from a third party provider at a cheaper price than the underlying physical line provider would've given us.
It's absurd to me to think that the landlord would've had to provide for any of that, except if it meant a huge amount of money and then one would've wanted to set up some sort of "cost share" arrangement. But we're talking like a hundred bucks here, for a multi-year period of use. We're renting the property, not internet service from them. Same with electrical service. We of course paid for the electrical service ourselves instead of through the landlord. It gave us the choice(s).
I rented somewhere that required you to use their broadband, and I couldn't get a static ip address.
There was also lots of other wierdness, like lots of the neighbor's televisions showing up on the apple airplay menubar pulldown.
Those laws were eventually purchased out of existence (one campaign donation at a time) - but while they held, numerous local ISPs popped up to serve their own communities.
I mention it because apartment dwellers might be happier with their stock arrangement, if it came with a meaningful choice of providers.