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.
You showed them that this tactic works, and have rewarded them for anti-competitive behavior. I wish I could say you've won in this situation, but at what cost to the rest of us?
It depends on whether you only care about yourself, or think a little bit about others in your situation too. While the poster got himself a nicer deal, taking it only incentivizes the company to continue with this practice. After all, per one HNer who can negotiate a better arrangement, they'll have a hundred schmucks who will take the default.
Now, I understand that in real life, it's not an easy, abstract choice - you have "only human" issues playing part, like being tired and wanting to get the Internet situation sorted out ASAP. So to be clear - I'm not blaming the poster for choosing this way. But it was a suboptimal decision - and the kind of decision that lets schemes like this exist in the first place, so I wouldn't call it "beating lock-in".
I think that, for the vast majority of renters, getting a discount is about as much as you can hope for. We would all love to have the time and resources to take the telecoms to court and set a precedent, but 90% of us (probably more in SF and among Hacker News readers) don't have the luxury of doing without the Internet to make a stand.
It's not the job of the individual consumer to fight lock-in for other people. That is the job of the government. If we have regulation against this bs, I'll report problems. Otherwise, I'll deal with them.
But there's nothing about this tactic that prevents future action against AT&T. If anything, gp now has more advantageous legal standing as a customer and denied them the added revenue which was the point of the monopoly in the first place - especially if they still have to pay off the landlord.
GP's marginal cost to AT&T is probably zero, so they're still getting some free money over what would happen if GP fought a bit more. So in a way, it is a wasted opportunity - instead of dealing the enemy a powerful blow, GP only scratched them a bit.
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.