A new fiber network provider drilled into the façades of private homes to run their cables, without consent, to save themselves the cost of digging. Their website was in Cloudflare’s exclusive walled garden – which means they were drilling people’s façades who were not even necessarily in the included group who could get service.
So my friend hand-delivered a letter and got the receptionist to sign for it (thus can be recognised by a court). The letter objected to the use of their home to deploy a network that exclude everyone Cloudflare excludes, and also said something like “since you had no consent to drill my house and I explicitly object, I will detach your cable on date X. And unless you say otherwise, if you consent to my work then take no action. Your inaction will signal acceptance to my plans.”
The Internet carrier had to employ a lawyer to write a long strongly worded response citing laws and their right to drill people’s façades, which they then had to send using registered mail (these letters are not cheap).
That’s it. My friend did not actually go through with it. But it’s a bit of justice nonetheless because the Internet provider had to pay a lawyer then pay the reg. letter costs. Would be even better if a lot of people would react in this way and help pile on the costs.
Incidentally, the network carrier quit using Cloudflare. They did not state why, but it’s nice to think that it’s possible that they realised the injustice of being exclusive.
I might be completely removed from whatever this whole thing is, but how on earth can a random company have the right to just drill into your house to run a cable?
The company is registered officially as a public company with a charter of providing Internet service. The law gives them the right to run their cables as needed and to make use of private and public property. And there is no need for an easement on the properties they use. But the law also says something like the carrier /should/ obtain consent on /how/ to run the cable… there should be a discussion that includes the property owner’s input. But “should” is a very weak word to have in legal text. They simply ignore that rule altogether.
The context in the case at hand is terraced homes. They bolt a cable right next to the cables of other carriers, which is a dozen or cables in some cases. But imagine if one person on your block had the power to refuse the cable. Then everyone else on that block would not get service. So it’s fair enough to some extent that they don’t need consent. But shitty that they can deploy a Cloudflare customer service website that excludes people. The law should impose inclusivity.
One of the nasty rules is that if you are a homeowner who wants to renovate your façade, you must send a registered letter to every company who has a cable on your façade to inform them. Each letter is about the cost of a big mac. So if there are 10 cables on your house, you’re spending 10 big macs on sending notifications. So this makes it a bit more disgusting that a network provider can be exclusive (and exclude you from service) while obligating you to inform them of your renovations.
That’s bonkers. Why don’t they connect outside in a junction and go through drops to individual houses? I think I’d accidentally cut that line every time I cut my grass until they moved it.
House might be too old. I’ve seen new townhomes built with coreline on one end for ISP purposes.
Oh word
Depends where in the world you are.
In Australia carriers have the right to deploy networks with very little pushback from land owners.
The key here being landowners not resident, tenet, or management company.
Many times we had to build our network and the management company or building owners would object but they had no standing because their was enough case law saying non land owners don’t have a say in the matter.
Of cause there are limits to this power depending on the side of the installation.