Isn't this illegal? Can we file a class action lawsuit or something?
What is it that you think is illegal?? Many buildings enter into exclusive contracts with a given provider in exchange for some perks (free cable access for common areas, free wiring of the building, etc) and the people who CHOOSE to live in the building are stuck with the provider who holds the exclusivity contract. If you don't like the provider, you can choose to not rent in that building.
I believe that the developer of LH and the owner of Gold Coast are the same person.
And, what's your point? Nowadays, they call that synergy. Again, NO ONE is forced to live at LHN. You can rent ANYWHERE.
Exactly. The internet service they provide comes with the territory. If the quality of internet and TV programming is important to the renter - they would discuss their options before signing the lease. I have FIOS and Comcast available in my rental units and every tenant for the last 5+ years has asked what the options are early in the lease process.
immigrationlawyer may not like it but the question has been answered.
And yet, look at j08901 reviving this thread with the same whine. Apparently, neither one of them thought to inquire as to connectivity options before moving into LHN, and now want to complain about FiOS not being available.
Very plainly: if you are thinking about moving into a place, you should ask the questions that are relevant to your needs and desires. If you want to have FiOS, or cable, or whatever, you should ask about it.
As for exclusivity contracts for such services, I find those to be common place in most new buildings. After a few years, many buildings choose to open up their doors to other providers. Sometimes, management (or, the developer?) will get incentives to maintain/continue the exclusivity arrangement. Not sure why this is all so shocking to some people.