I lived in a building that had an exclusive deal with AT&T. Problem was they were out of "connections," and couldn't hook me up. I only had my cellphone hotspot for months, until I threatened to write a letter to the FCC and CPUC about their "monopolistic" practices in my building. They got a tech out the next day.
I had the same experience in SF. AT&T tried to sell me 28Mbit for $75/month in SoMa and the building didn't allow me to bring Monkeybrains. They just said no and told me they had an exclusivity agreement with AT&T. Called Comcast, they told me they can't because the address looks like a business address despite being residential.
I called the AT&T representative they got me in touch with. I told them about how what they are doing is illegal and they can't limit me to use this etc.
They backed down. Gave me free cable, 50% off, waived the installation fee and came and installed it in a day. Their previous estimate for an installation was two to three weeks.
Did you skip mailing the FCC/CPUC because you didn't want to piss off the landlord? I mean, you may have gotten on their naughty list either way, and it's important for the FCC to get more such complaints to take action.
You should have filed a complaint either way. Filing a legitimate complaint with the FCC will get their attention ASAP. I've done it before with my ISP (RCN) and all of a sudden I was getting executive support and a much better deal. It works.
This problem has been solved other places. For example, in Hong Kong, all operators have a statutory right of access to common areas of buildings to provision services to customers in the building.
Incorporated Owners/Building Management:
"(a) should not impose any fees, deposit, access charge, administrative charge, escort charge or rental charge on the Operators for the access of the building, the use of the common parts of the building or the use of the in-building telecommunications system of the building for the provision of services to residents or occupiers of the building
(b) should not enter into any commercial contract which will unreasonably restrict the right of a resident or occupier or deprives a resident or occupier of the right, to have access to the public telecommunications services of his choice. Any such agreement is void to the extent that it imposes such restriction;"
Would be nice to see similar legislation adopted in the USA.
A client of mine in NYC was getting gouged for Internet service in their office building, by the incumbent building-wide ISP which seemed to be operated by the landlord. When it became necessary to upgrade to a higher tier of service, their only upgrade options from the incumbent provider were $1000+ per month above market rate. When we brought in service from a competing provider, we learned that we would have to pay the building's ISP a rental fee for use of the "risers"- they owned the rights to the conduit from the basement to my clients' suite, and charged us rent at what I considered an unfair rate on our use of it.
I think many landlords around here signed away rights on telecom services without knowing better, or set up exclusive agreements like this and those mentioned in the article, but this was the worst offender I've ever encountered.
My apartment in the midwest provides their own internet service, which is provided from Comcast. It's an amazing $60/mo plan for 5mb/s with a datacap of 250gb a month. I can not get "real" unlimited Comcast for $50/mo due to the exclusivity agreement...
So happy to see an article about this issue... A few months ago, while apartment hunting, I was thinking to myself, why are people accepting this?
Several apartments here in Austin, TX do this. In my search, I found the biggest offenders were Greystar and Camden properties. They lock you in to these silly "Entertainment" packages. Exclusively Time Warner, Grande, or AT&T depending on the property.
If you're already in a contract with a provider, you'd have to break your contract just to move in? That's ridiculous.
It's really unfortunate, as some of these properties are located in very desirable locations. I couldn't come to terms with being forced to use a certain provider. So I found a property in a less desirable location that offered full competition among utilities.
I don't know about internet, but I've declined to allow them to install satellite dishes. Their technicians will drill holes through your roof with reckless abandon, and the tenant won't care because they'll likely be moved out by the time the water damage really sets in from their improperly filled hole. Not to mention you can't have a one-time installation: They want to reinstall a new one every time so they can charge the tenant an installation fee.
Even if they offer the installation for free, I want their barely-trained technicians to drill holes in my property as much as a fisherman wants them to drill holes in his boat.
Just letting you know, the FCC prohibits landlords from disallowing satellite dishes and broadcast antennas from being installed in areas controlled by the tenant. You can disallow them in common areas (like the roof, which you mentioned), sure, but the FCC will come down on you hard if they get wind of you trying to interfere with them installing a satellite dish on their balcony.
A tech who will only install on a roof is just lazy. There are always other installation options, especially when the building has a flat membrane roof.
Apparently you haven't seen this yet, but if you got a lucrative offer from an ISP to go exclusive, would you take it?
As a member of an HOA board with 7 builds and 13 units, is there a reasonable way to go about setting up a common conduit system so any ISP could come in? Currently only Comcast had run lines with the original building of the property and of course didn't trench properly so no other ISP could come in.
you designate an MPOE (minimum point of entry) and then have cabling/conduit installed from the MPOE to units/residences/NIDs. then your HOA owns the "inside wiring" and, with the right amount of lawyer magic, each unit can own/control the destiny of the cable/wire/conduit that goes from the MPOE to them.
then the real trick is getting the ISP you want to play ball. I know of a few instances where Comcast just won't entertain the setup whatsoever. Unfortunately, in telecommunications, largess is the name of the game...
It's done in my building. Gigabit Ethernet is run to each unit. The ISP (Comcast or Webpass) will then hook up the correct wires that are in the basement.
Google Fiber announced several months ago they were moving into my apartment complex and construction is expected to be completed with 8-12mo. In the mean time, I got a new job where I get to work from home, so I figured I probably -ought- to buy internet instead of tethering.
Shortest contract I could sign to get the advertised pricing was 3 years from the incumbent telco provider here. They offered me the "blazing" package that had a whole 10mbit upstream.
In Chicago, I'm currently living in a high rise where the fastest plan I can get is 24 Mbps for around $80/mo. My high rise has an exclusivity contract with AT&T U-Verse. I've spoken with AT&T reps and they can't offer any higher speeds. I also talked to property management and they said there's nothing they can do for me. They are locked into an exclusivity contract with AT&T for the wires in the building.
Does anyone have experience dealing with properties who claim to have exclusivity contracts? I talked to people at Webpass, and they've stated it is available in my area. They'd come in and set everything up free of charge. I don't see the downside for my building to allow Webpass to come in.
I'm in a high rise in Boston, similar situation but with Comcast. I also spoke with Webpass a few days ago, they say that my building has a revenue sharing exclusive agreement with Comcast and that Webass does not participate in revenue sharing agreements. This feels like it should be illegal but my sister, an attorney, did not see anything obviously wrong under current law.
Typically the exclusivity agreement is a marketing exclusivity only. It's also true that AT&T may have maintained ownership of the lines, especially if it is fiber direct to the unit. If that's the case, any new provider would need to install new lines, which is costly once the building is complete. The ROI likely won't pencil for the new provider.
Does anyone know if any large-scale landlord is also receiving user data as well as cash from its ISPs? EULAs are broad enough to let any ISP, website or app provider to do anything with customer data that they want. Landlords could already being treated as "partners" and thus negotiating for and receiving user data in order "to offer goods and services" and "to improve the "UX". Is this a fair price to extract from a residential "captive audience?"
Very interesting you say this. I thought this was happening in my apartment after being up for a couple days. SSL connections would keep getting broken with resources loading over HTTP, I thought that I was getting MITM'd by property management and injecting advertisements. It would be a pretty good idea.
I think conspiring with an ISP in this way would be unlikely.
More likely, "free WiFi" managed by the landlord would be included in your rent, and they'd decline to let an ISP run any cable because "What do you need that for? We're already giving you free WiFi!"
In most of the US, you have a choice of one or two wired broadband ISPs anyway. I imagine most renters don't care about competition, since they know they wouldn't have much of a choice no matter where they go, and if they're in an area with two choices, they're likely to be equally crappy.
ISP competition is important, but I see this as a symptom, not a cause. Fix the root problem, and people might start caring about ISP choice. Once renters care about ISP choice, big landlords will fall into line.
> ISP competition is important, but I see this as a symptom, not a cause. Fix the root problem, and people might start caring about ISP choice. Once renters care about ISP choice, big landlords will fall into line
Depends on where you live. In NYC, Verizon promised to provide fiber to the entire city several years back (and there is currently a massive legal dispute with the city because they've fallen incredibly short of delivering on that)[0]. It's particularly apalling because Verizon didn't even have to build out most of the fiber - the city already had a dark fiber network covering large portions of the city.
I'm one of the unlucky ones. Verizon has fiber running right in front of my building - other buildings on the block already have Fios. However, Verizon refuses to provide Internet to my building unless they can also provide TV service as well[1]. The landlord has given Time Warner Cable the exclusive rights to provide TV service in my building, so that means that I'm stuck with only one choice, even though it's technically a "competitive" market.
So, this issue is both a symptom and an exacerbating cause pf ISP non-competition. At least in NYC, exclusivity agreements make it much easier for the local monopolies[2] to pretend that they aren't blocking competition, when in reality they've carefully drawn lines around their territories and have a "gentleman's agreement" not to encroach on each others'.
If landlords didn't (or couldn't) receive kickbacks like these, it'd be much harder for them to maintain this illusion.
[1] This is not hypothetical; I've called up their offices more than once and confirmed that this is the blocking step before they schedule a date to hook up the building.
[2] TWC, Comcast, and Optimum have exclusivity rights to buildings all across the city.
Typically there are four consumer level providers in US markets. One coax, one copper/fiber, one (or more) satellite, and most likely a regional operator that may be either copper/fiber or coax. Also some regions do have consumer-level WISPs, although those are more rare in urban areas. Webpass being a high profile exception.
The problem is you can't get the standard Comcast or U-verse product in those buildings. The landlord signed a 10-year deal stating "10mb/s" per unit. Meanwhile your neighbor in a non-exclusive building gets 75mb/s easily for the same price or even less than you're paying under the exclusive agreement.
Worse, a lot of these buildings sign deals with no-name local fiber providers (or resellers) who pull the same crap, so its not a "big business won't let us compete" issue as much as it is lack of choice for residents due to existing contracts by the property owner.
Not at all the same, but I'm in a house in Redwood City and it's frustrating that part of the city has broadband choice (you can get Wave/Astound OR Comcast) but my part doesn't. I don't even really understand why -- I don't get what part of the infrastructure is owned by who, how it's decided, and how to push for change.
There are local providers such as Sonic who are rolling out Gigabit in certain parts of the Bay Area, and who insist "the more people in your neighborhood that sign up, the more likely we are to bring FTTH to your neighborhood!" but there's no way of judging which one is the more "likely" bet, which is frustrating.
I wish there was someone I could just throw a couple thousand dollars at to solve the problem, but no doubt it's vastly, vastly more expensive for them than that.
> And then they’ll add little clauses saying “if any part of this agreement turns out to be illegal, you can cut out that portion of the agreement and the rest of it will stand.”
As will every attorney in the world for any contract. I don't think I've ever seen a contract without this.
Comcast does enough ridiculous and illegal stuff, we do not need to reframe standard practices as bad simply because it's Comcast that's doing it.
>TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER VALVE, VALVE EU, THEIR LICENSORS, NOR THEIR AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF VALVE’S OR VALVE EU’S SERVICE PROVIDERS, SHALL BE LIABLE IN ANY WAY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND RESULTING [...]
Note the phrase "to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law" - that means that if a section is illegal, then it's not to the extent of including that section. It's pretty commonly used and it's actually pretty nifty, although I'd appreciate it more if companies didn't try to claim bloody everything with it attached.
In Austria there's a law (might be an EU regulation) that requires the formerly state-owned phone company to rent the "last mile" cables to other companies. Made internet a lot cheaper (16Mbit ADSL costs around 25€ per month).
However, for some reason, private cable companies do not need to share their infrastructure, so if you want faster Internet you are still stuck with the local cable company.
this is called local-loop unbundling. there are various "hysterical raisins" (aka historical reasons) that cable companies are exempt from this regulatory requirement. the main one being their infrastructure was not publicly funded at any time (ignoring tax breaks and a bevy of other direct/indirect public subsidies)
there is also BSA or bitstream access where, in the case of DSL, the ATM circuit is provisioned and carried by the incumbent and then handed off to the competitive provider in a central location. of course, this isn't all that useful since it's still the incumbent who has to provision the circuit, maintain the copper and equipment, and generally muck up the customer experience despite not being the labelled provider.
My apartment has just about every ISP in the area including locally run fiber that runs 60/month for gigabit. I actually laugh when I see fliers from the other companies offering "blazing fast" internet for 100+
> For existing buildings, stop companies from being able to sign contractual provisions limiting access to inside wiring. Make it illegal for landlords to get any form of side payment whatsoever for cutting off our choice of ISPs.
Sure easy fix. Just void existing contracts that were valid when written. And this is coming from a lawyer no less.
At least in Ohio, the pricing is all the same regardless of whether or not you're in an apartment. So it's really more like you're selecting an Internet provider as a part of the renting process.
My concern with having shared utilities is you'll have to wait for some underfunded bueracracy to fix things if they break, which is likely to take even longer than Time Warner. Currently, WOW! and AT&T are actually quite quick about this where I live.
In my opinion, if you were to regulate it, it should just be to prevent the price gouging.
>And these shenanigans will only stop when cities and national leaders require that every building have neutral fiber/wireless facilities that make it easy for residents to switch services when they want to.
There is no particular reason to limit this to multi-tenant buildings or wired broadband. The problem of monopoly last mile access comes up in different contexts. The same legal solution should work for most any situation.
We had this idea with my co-worker the other day, about becoming an apartment complex ISP, getting a high-bandwidth connection to the whole building and wiring every apartment with fiber optic links. Then, we'd put a server farm in the basement and offer "Internet + compute services". Like VPSes for techies, and OnLive equivalent for gamers, except the roundtrip for the latter would be down to the basement and back up, instead of down to Australia, through China and back.
The grander idea is to have apartment buildings with their own basement clouds, where tenants could off-load computational needs. Sounds like a much more energy-efficient solution than person having either an overpowered device or a low-power one in constant connection with clouds on the other side of the planet. Moreover, this idea was part of a general brainstorming about ways to dumb the cloud back down, so that it's distributed compute-on-demand infrastructure, and not the shitty third-party data silos it's now.
After reading the comments here I realized that while my friend and I would have the best of intentions, if ISPs in general were to be allowed to do such a thing, they'd fuck it up exactly in the way they do in this case.
A note to anyone from Webpass who might be reading this:
Please bring back the map showing the buildings where Webpass is installed...I looked recently and couldn't find it. Or, if this is too confusing now that you have many more installed buildings, please provide a list.
When I selected my last apartment, I knew I wanted to try Webpass. So I started there, pulled up the map of buildings that had it installed and limited my search to those buildings. Given how much better the service is than Comcast/AT&T, I can see a lot of people who work out of a home office wanting to do something similar.
You could even try to work with the buildings that have allowed you in to post apartment listings on your site...seems like a win-win-win (more webpass customers, faster filling of vacancies in webpass buildings, residents get better internet.)
[+] [-] jdavis703|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] therein|9 years ago|reply
I called the AT&T representative they got me in touch with. I told them about how what they are doing is illegal and they can't limit me to use this etc.
They backed down. Gave me free cable, 50% off, waived the installation fee and came and installed it in a day. Their previous estimate for an installation was two to three weeks.
[+] [-] r00fus|9 years ago|reply
If the FCC and PUCs could do marketing, that'd be awesome, but I'm sure some corporate crony politician (or even judge) would shut that down...
[+] [-] cm3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinph|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] travelton|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tn13|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikanj|9 years ago|reply
Repeat every few weeks until number of customers drops under number of available ports in router/switch/gizmo.
[+] [-] larrysalibra|9 years ago|reply
http://www.ofca.gov.hk/filemanager/ofca/common/Industry/tele...
Incorporated Owners/Building Management: "(a) should not impose any fees, deposit, access charge, administrative charge, escort charge or rental charge on the Operators for the access of the building, the use of the common parts of the building or the use of the in-building telecommunications system of the building for the provision of services to residents or occupiers of the building (b) should not enter into any commercial contract which will unreasonably restrict the right of a resident or occupier or deprives a resident or occupier of the right, to have access to the public telecommunications services of his choice. Any such agreement is void to the extent that it imposes such restriction;"
Would be nice to see similar legislation adopted in the USA.
[+] [-] JadeNB|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ndespres|9 years ago|reply
I think many landlords around here signed away rights on telecom services without knowing better, or set up exclusive agreements like this and those mentioned in the article, but this was the worst offender I've ever encountered.
[+] [-] SurrealSoul|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] st3v3r|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] largote|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] travelton|9 years ago|reply
Several apartments here in Austin, TX do this. In my search, I found the biggest offenders were Greystar and Camden properties. They lock you in to these silly "Entertainment" packages. Exclusively Time Warner, Grande, or AT&T depending on the property.
If you're already in a contract with a provider, you'd have to break your contract just to move in? That's ridiculous.
It's really unfortunate, as some of these properties are located in very desirable locations. I couldn't come to terms with being forced to use a certain provider. So I found a property in a less desirable location that offered full competition among utilities.
[+] [-] heydonovan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelBurge|9 years ago|reply
Even if they offer the installation for free, I want their barely-trained technicians to drill holes in my property as much as a fisherman wants them to drill holes in his boat.
[+] [-] amyjess|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|9 years ago|reply
Apparently you haven't seen this yet, but if you got a lucrative offer from an ISP to go exclusive, would you take it?
[+] [-] mey|9 years ago|reply
Has anyone done this before?
[+] [-] pyvpx|9 years ago|reply
then the real trick is getting the ISP you want to play ball. I know of a few instances where Comcast just won't entertain the setup whatsoever. Unfortunately, in telecommunications, largess is the name of the game...
[+] [-] jdavis703|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colejohnson66|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exabrial|9 years ago|reply
Shortest contract I could sign to get the advertised pricing was 3 years from the incumbent telco provider here. They offered me the "blazing" package that had a whole 10mbit upstream.
[+] [-] atburrow|9 years ago|reply
Does anyone have experience dealing with properties who claim to have exclusivity contracts? I talked to people at Webpass, and they've stated it is available in my area. They'd come in and set everything up free of charge. I don't see the downside for my building to allow Webpass to come in.
[+] [-] hanklazard|9 years ago|reply
I'd like to see that change.
[+] [-] mikefivedeuce|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hNewsLover99|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _RPM|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superuser2|9 years ago|reply
More likely, "free WiFi" managed by the landlord would be included in your rent, and they'd decline to let an ISP run any cable because "What do you need that for? We're already giving you free WiFi!"
[+] [-] rmc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
ISP competition is important, but I see this as a symptom, not a cause. Fix the root problem, and people might start caring about ISP choice. Once renters care about ISP choice, big landlords will fall into line.
[+] [-] chimeracoder|9 years ago|reply
Depends on where you live. In NYC, Verizon promised to provide fiber to the entire city several years back (and there is currently a massive legal dispute with the city because they've fallen incredibly short of delivering on that)[0]. It's particularly apalling because Verizon didn't even have to build out most of the fiber - the city already had a dark fiber network covering large portions of the city.
I'm one of the unlucky ones. Verizon has fiber running right in front of my building - other buildings on the block already have Fios. However, Verizon refuses to provide Internet to my building unless they can also provide TV service as well[1]. The landlord has given Time Warner Cable the exclusive rights to provide TV service in my building, so that means that I'm stuck with only one choice, even though it's technically a "competitive" market.
So, this issue is both a symptom and an exacerbating cause pf ISP non-competition. At least in NYC, exclusivity agreements make it much easier for the local monopolies[2] to pretend that they aren't blocking competition, when in reality they've carefully drawn lines around their territories and have a "gentleman's agreement" not to encroach on each others'.
If landlords didn't (or couldn't) receive kickbacks like these, it'd be much harder for them to maintain this illusion.
[0] http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150713/BLOGS04/150719...
[1] This is not hypothetical; I've called up their offices more than once and confirmed that this is the blocking step before they schedule a date to hook up the building.
[2] TWC, Comcast, and Optimum have exclusivity rights to buildings all across the city.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|9 years ago|reply
The problem is you can't get the standard Comcast or U-verse product in those buildings. The landlord signed a 10-year deal stating "10mb/s" per unit. Meanwhile your neighbor in a non-exclusive building gets 75mb/s easily for the same price or even less than you're paying under the exclusive agreement.
Worse, a lot of these buildings sign deals with no-name local fiber providers (or resellers) who pull the same crap, so its not a "big business won't let us compete" issue as much as it is lack of choice for residents due to existing contracts by the property owner.
[+] [-] rconti|9 years ago|reply
There are local providers such as Sonic who are rolling out Gigabit in certain parts of the Bay Area, and who insist "the more people in your neighborhood that sign up, the more likely we are to bring FTTH to your neighborhood!" but there's no way of judging which one is the more "likely" bet, which is frustrating.
I wish there was someone I could just throw a couple thousand dollars at to solve the problem, but no doubt it's vastly, vastly more expensive for them than that.
[+] [-] pc86|9 years ago|reply
As will every attorney in the world for any contract. I don't think I've ever seen a contract without this.
Comcast does enough ridiculous and illegal stuff, we do not need to reframe standard practices as bad simply because it's Comcast that's doing it.
[+] [-] Qwertious|9 years ago|reply
>TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER VALVE, VALVE EU, THEIR LICENSORS, NOR THEIR AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF VALVE’S OR VALVE EU’S SERVICE PROVIDERS, SHALL BE LIABLE IN ANY WAY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND RESULTING [...]
Note the phrase "to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law" - that means that if a section is illegal, then it's not to the extent of including that section. It's pretty commonly used and it's actually pretty nifty, although I'd appreciate it more if companies didn't try to claim bloody everything with it attached.
[+] [-] jakobegger|9 years ago|reply
However, for some reason, private cable companies do not need to share their infrastructure, so if you want faster Internet you are still stuck with the local cable company.
[+] [-] pyvpx|9 years ago|reply
there is also BSA or bitstream access where, in the case of DSL, the ATM circuit is provisioned and carried by the incumbent and then handed off to the competitive provider in a central location. of course, this isn't all that useful since it's still the incumbent who has to provision the circuit, maintain the copper and equipment, and generally muck up the customer experience despite not being the labelled provider.
[+] [-] cgy1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dawnerd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gist|9 years ago|reply
Sure easy fix. Just void existing contracts that were valid when written. And this is coming from a lawyer no less.
[+] [-] abjx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsmith0295|9 years ago|reply
My concern with having shared utilities is you'll have to wait for some underfunded bueracracy to fix things if they break, which is likely to take even longer than Time Warner. Currently, WOW! and AT&T are actually quite quick about this where I live.
In my opinion, if you were to regulate it, it should just be to prevent the price gouging.
[+] [-] upofadown|9 years ago|reply
There is no particular reason to limit this to multi-tenant buildings or wired broadband. The problem of monopoly last mile access comes up in different contexts. The same legal solution should work for most any situation.
[+] [-] foota|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
The grander idea is to have apartment buildings with their own basement clouds, where tenants could off-load computational needs. Sounds like a much more energy-efficient solution than person having either an overpowered device or a low-power one in constant connection with clouds on the other side of the planet. Moreover, this idea was part of a general brainstorming about ways to dumb the cloud back down, so that it's distributed compute-on-demand infrastructure, and not the shitty third-party data silos it's now.
After reading the comments here I realized that while my friend and I would have the best of intentions, if ISPs in general were to be allowed to do such a thing, they'd fuck it up exactly in the way they do in this case.
[+] [-] curun1r|9 years ago|reply
Please bring back the map showing the buildings where Webpass is installed...I looked recently and couldn't find it. Or, if this is too confusing now that you have many more installed buildings, please provide a list.
When I selected my last apartment, I knew I wanted to try Webpass. So I started there, pulled up the map of buildings that had it installed and limited my search to those buildings. Given how much better the service is than Comcast/AT&T, I can see a lot of people who work out of a home office wanting to do something similar.
You could even try to work with the buildings that have allowed you in to post apartment listings on your site...seems like a win-win-win (more webpass customers, faster filling of vacancies in webpass buildings, residents get better internet.)