There's nothing you can really do about this. Even if there were dozens of potential providers, apartment buildings wouldn't want to accommodate dozens of companies running wiring through their building or putting equipment in their telecom closets. And they certainly don't want to take on the cost and hassle of maintaining their own wiring inside the building.
>>Even if there were dozens of potential providers, apartment buildings wouldn't want to accommodate dozens of companies running wiring through their building or putting equipment in their telecom closets.
I don't see why this is such a big deal. Where I'm from, different telecom companies come into apartment buildings to set up boxes and run wires and everyone is OK with it.
We rented an office for the new company a few months ago in a building that had just been rehabbed. The building owners had arranged to bring Comcast into the building, but for obvious reasons we wanted to avoid Comcast and called AT&T. AT&T couldn't run cable to the building without significant modifications to the building's wiring. All the conduit intake was installed by Comcast. The "phone closet" was full of Comcast equipment. There is, so far as we know, literally no way to get any service in the building besides Comcast --- unless we owned the building and paid tens of thousands of dollars for new telecom buildout.
Getting a new telecom service into an existing building is, in fact, a big deal.
In our building, a brand-new luxury complex with hundreds of units, the building owner wouldn't even let Verizon run fiber to each unit. They were only allowed to get into a telecom closet on each floor with VDSL the last few hundred feet.
Single-provider building policies will eventually reduce the market value of the real estate, eliminating any minor economic benefit that may accrue in kickbacks from the single provider.
We had unbundled last mile for quite some time with DSL. Sure we got a ton of new ISPs, but none of them wanted to invest in upgrading the infrastructure.
