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.
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.