1  2  3  Next

Tenants (renters) are not allowed to have many rights by default of lacking power of 'ownership'. BUT, did you know that any renter here (at least in Saskatchewan) have no right of privacy to an extreme? Also, we are held liable to any utilities while simultaneously being disempowered to prevent the owners from accessing these for themselves on our debt AND interrupt these services.

The law supposedly asserts some of these behaviors as "illegal" but cannot actually be challenged because the tenant complaining must go through processes that defeat the capacity of them to succeed regardless for many technical reasons.

Communication Utilities
If the company connects lines to a privately owned apartment dwelling, all lines between the outside connection and the internal 'suites' of the tenants are considered legally only of the power of the owner. As such, for instance, if you have your lines cut, tapped, or being used BY the owner in some discrete way, there is nothing the tenant can do YET are still independently LIABLE for the costs to those utilities IN LAW.

I discovered this here in Saskatchewan a few years ago when I had SaskTel services that was all of a sudden cut one day. Upon contacting the company, I was told that I'd require waiting a week for an appointment. I contacted the President of the company at the time and asked why I should not have had an emergency worker supplied given this service is essential, ...one reason why SaskTel was even justified as a Crown Corporation.

I was responded by the President at the time that only asserted that I should have been offered and emergency worker.....AT MY EXPENSE ($50 minimal). They justified this as MY problem because they informed me that the lines inside the building belong to the owner. So I contacted the owner but (reasonably I thought) was told that this was the responsibility of the utility company.

The gap between the outside access of the utility to the particular suite should belong to the company's liability when renters, not the owners, are required to pay the bill.

But the more problematic concern: given the owner has power between the outside utility and the tenant, the owner has unrestricted power to manage those links by ANY means if they are not held liable from neither outside utilities nor the tenant. This means they have a technical right to tap, use, or give access to others for any reason. This includes the police to be empowered to have access indirectly to appeal to the owner to interfere in ways that are illegal to all others (owners of homes, etc.)

If you don't care for recognizing this, let me broaden this logic to businesses within places like malls or those leasing building they are not direct owners of!!

We are already being discriminated as renters to freedoms of personal behaviors that are reversed if you go accross to the American border. For instance, we cannot place our own locks on our doors, have to enable potential access to the landlord and any of their permitted choice. They DO have to give a one day notice but can (and do) technically still go through your suite as long as they don't get caught. Police are NOT permitted to enter one's suites here (even if they hear suspicious behaviors going on from outside) BUT are enabled to access the privacy through one's communication lines given only the permission of the land owner regardless of any potential disruption of the tenant's rights.

For the poor, this is completely discriminating with utter disrespect but should be concerning for anyone who requires renting for any time.

I'd like others to pay attention to this and see if it affects them. I think if a utility company can transfer the responsibility of power to the owner of a building when the utility is liable and the owner is able to transfer the blame on the utility similarly, the tenant has no real power to avoid violation.

There is ONE potential exception which SHOULD be in favor of the tenant though: if the liability to the cost between the utility's responsibility ends AT THE BUILDING's OWNER, then we should have the right as tenants to pass the debts of our services to the owners legally as well. If not, there is a contradiction of laws.

I urge others to try this. If you are a tenant who desires not to pay the bill, the owner should be held liable for the same reason the utility passes their own responsibility onto the owner over the tenant paying the services. Businesses as tenants should be able to do this as well and I urge them to use this loophole to justify not paying their own utilities unless they are completely at protected right to hold the utility companies liable for their own option to transfer blame to the owners. The owners also have complete POWER to tap and use their tenant's lines because the utility company only legally holds the tenant liable to the bill!!

   

Why do you think you're entitled to emergency phone reconnection service? It's essential?

   

I urge nobody try this. The law does not matter.

Try defending yourself when your telephone is cut off and the telephone company sends your bills to the collection agency.

   

I don't understand the gripe.
The line going into an apartment building, to the distribution box (demarc) is the telco's responsibility.
The line(s) from the demarc to your apartment are the apartment owners responsibility.
The jack in the apartment and the phone are yours.
Pretty clear, always been like that and I left that trade over 20 years ago.
There was no 24/7 service time guarantee even when it was a regulated industry, and YOU ALL wanted deregulation.
So stories of people calling in that all the telephone poles on the street were knocked down by a storm and being told by some idiot that "he tested the line and everything is fine, you'll have to pay to have someone look" are normal these days.

   

Who has copper phone lines any more??

   

Old people, mainly.

Also, what does this have to do with Rights to Privacy or Protection?

   

Even my 82yo mother-in-law is on a cell phone these days. Much more reliable especially in bad weather.

   

hey wiretap.jpg [ 43.62 KiB | Viewed 693 times ]

   

"entitled"?

I PAY for communication services that requires that company to be responsible for what I receive. If I don't receive the service, I should not be required to pay, period. On top of that, the specific service through "SaskTel" is a particular company set up as an extension of government for the reason that those who set it up thought people NEED that service without reference to private competing interests. [...you know, that the very media, like the air we breathe, for instance, is not one that should be 'owned' by private individuals and be protected as a right to all people as "essential", not as some 'luxury' of privilege.] As such, not only do WE all have a right to get what services we pay for, the taxes that WE all pay for such an entity to exist gives us all the right to that service.

   

So 'force' is all that matters? Because such a society forces me, am I not allowed to even argue against this injustice because I have no real power to do anything about it without penalty? Am I to be settled with whatever society I am accidentally born to to comply by those who are simply as 'accidentally' empowered by their means to have inherited the ones with the big guns?

   

If there is a way to insert images I can draw from my computer, it might help clarify.

You have some building that is owned by whomever that is SPECIFICALLY used with rental suites inside that are discrete units. IF the right to a renter is non-existent, then the owner has equal rights to walk into my rented space as much as they are to welcome themselves to use my phone or other services. YET, I'm expected to be the 'legal' OWNER of the service DEBT subscribed to me as 'rent' by both the caretaker (owner of the building) and to the services that is supposedly directed to me.

So HOW is it that I am both responsible to 'rent' services but expect the actual OWNERS to have full access to abuse or do whatever they want upon MY service while I am still LEGALLY required to pay that bill?

Most, maybe not some of you, think that the owner basically means that they have some magical God-given right by nature's protection to do what they want over those who are born as 'floaters' upon this same Earth. But YOUR own right AS "OWNERS" is ONLY a privilege granted by ALL OF US born to this world. Much of your right as "owners" are FORCED upon others to respect regardless of HOW cruel they can be. But the ones who 'rent' are actually TEMPORAL OWNERS to those properties they pay for.

So, as a "renter" who actually PAYS for service, this relieves the "OWNER" of the objects, lands or services TO those who rent. They do NOT 'own' some perpetual God-given right to CONSTANT 'ownership' regardless of the system set up BY THE PEOPLE to have granted them their own right to PROFIT (that's $ MORE out than one puts in, against nature's conservation laws).

My PLACE I rent though, in the larger complex of the owner's domain, is NOT something I grant privilege for the landlord to have a right to BLOCK my access in and out. If my suite is in the middle of the complex, I don't technically own the access THROUGH the unrented portion of the building I require to go through. But does it require that I must PAY also a TROLL fee to get in and out because of this? Is the OWNER rightfully able to be privileged to cut me up, as the lines that exist between the outer walls of his/her domain to my suite simply because of that technicality?

NO. (or do you oddly think otherwise?)
IF I am required to PAY for the service of 'rent' of my suite AS I AM to any SERVICES I am also responsible for THAT the very system that GRANTS privilege of 'ownership' to the landlord, I require a right to whatever ACCESS between the walls of the outer complex and my suite without violation. Thus, the lines between me and the service box of OUR public communication system, should be protected BY those I am PAYING service to. I should not require being responsible to 'police' the lines any more than my access to my suite through the doors of the hallway I require passing through. If I am violated by the owner directly by bodily contact, OR to their indirect power to cut off my services by public utilities, while they may be liable, the OUTSIDE services to me through to my suite is PROTECTED by the same rights.

If my lines can be violated to services that I pay for simply because it is the owners 'fault' of violation, and require ME to hold the POWER to defend it, then this should hold true should the 'owner' violate the PERSONS directly who rent because they are technically inside the 'owners' domain, even if 'rented'. If I am violated, do the police say, "Oh sorry man, the domain of the suite where you were violated in belongs to the 'owner' and so is the one you require to fight back on your own terms, not ours. You may also pay taxes to us to defend you, but we only require defending you up our own capacity NOT to violate the ROUTE between your suite and the outside doors!"

These laws technically allow the service provider to hold the 'renter' accountable even if the 'owner' is the one violating the service provision. It also LEGALLY enables the 'owner' to spy, for instance, by interfering with those lines 'they own' between the outside box and the suite renter. It means the renter has zero rights simply by a technicality.


[This is a similar concern about malls and forums where the PUBLIC grants privilege of places for 'owners' to enable public people to be invited for business. We have a right to human minimal protections. If I am in a mall, my rights do not all go out the window because the very owners' privilege TO RENT or SELL services to the public is only a kind of 'RENT' the people's access to or for trade that those profiteers of them are dependent upon.]

   

WTF are you ranting about?
The landlord/owner has no right to enter your apartment and use your phone, tv or internet. They have to provide advance notice to enter at all, and those reasons are restricted by law.
If you want those services and lines must be added, or even if you want a satellite dish and need to drill holes or open walls to install it, you need the landlords permission. Period. It's their physical property not yours.
Physically altering their property is not your right as a tenant and has nothing to do with privacy at all.

   

In bad weather perhaps, but not in a major disaster like a hurricane.

Most cell towers are connected to the main grid and only have an eight to sixteen hour supply (diesel generator or battery) to power them if the connection to the power grid is severed or fails.

   

You missed the argument or choose to ignore it. Pretend you have a suite IN the center of a complex to which any access to or from the suite requires that renter from going through the non-rented portion of the building to access or not. While you would think it 'fair' that one who is isolated physically to the outside world must respect the rights of that renter, the power of the 'owner' to abuse this regarding the communication lines in this same domain are of the privilege of the owner to legitimately abuse.

The distinction: communication versus transportation are merely "media". Why is it not right to beat up a tenant or deny them access to an internal suite (transporting media) but alright to abuse their means of communication in between? IF they 'owner' owns the lines of communication in between, then why are they NOT liable to the debt of the communication company by laws that still require the tenant to pay? That the owner can cut the lines and whether technically accepted in law or not, given it is private property, the TRUST is given to the landowner over the tenant as thought they are supreme beings.

This media control rights should not extend to the owner when the business of the function of the rental suite is PRIVILEGED to the owner, not some innate genetic right of nature.

HOW, if you still disagree CAN the tenant have power to enforce any 'illegal' activity of the owner from cutting your lines or accessing them (stealing your service AT your expense) or simply tapping your lines when that property is still considered even out of the power of the public police to violate even to determine if true or not? Why is the tenant LIABLE for some bill rather than having some inherent right to simply not pay it and have the communication 'renting' company require collecting it from that owner? This is hypocritical. And I could care less about your belief about some pristine absolute right of the owner here. When 'renting' anything, that property is TEMPORARILY OWNED by that renter. If the tenant has no absolute protection on this, neither should the supposed 'owner' given ownership itself is a public permit to those who CLAIM is their 'own' for no other reason but by force of that society's protection.

   

Two things,
1. You need to ramble less and learn to be more succinct. Your post is a text wall of madness.
2. Its called contract law, in order to use the service you agree to give up some rights. Renting is not temporarily owning, its renting. I own it, you're borrowing it. By using the service you agree to the terms whether you read and sign off on each clause. Kinda like going to a mall, you consent to being videotaped by virtue of entering onto the property.

WTF is transporting media? Supreme beings? Owner owning lines of communication?

Did the landlord cut your lines or did SaskTel? If it was SaskTel, see point 2. They own the line and the service, they have the right to modify or terminate your service for any of the reasons listed in your contract, including, but not limited to Failure to pay, or misuse of equipment.

You need to lay your argument out logically. This is too hard to follow.

   

1  2  3  Next