Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#31

Post by NearAP »

skullone wrote: post #30
NearAP wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some Internet providers have different rates for different capacities/bandwidth. Last time I used COMCAST, their wizard walked you through different use-cases and you got different packages based on the type of stuff you said you used it for.

Comcast is a poor example, and a wizard asking "do you game, you need 1Gb!". Lol

How is Comcast a poor example? It is a major internet service provider in the Bay Area and in some places is the only one available. For better or for worse, you have to go with what is available in your area.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#32

Post by NearAP »

therealpygon wrote: post #28
NearAP wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I think the landlords are trying to make is that if you spend majority of your time at home, they assume (expect) the utilities to be higher. Keep in mind this is a 1 bedroom ADA and so they’re probably targeting a specific type of tenant.

I think the point being made is how this is different from stay-at-home parents? I would also add another example: home-bound elderly or disabled people? Is it acceptable to charge those categories a different rate, given the reasoning being applied is simply “being home more”?

I'm afraid I don't understand this logic.

Their own logic seems to be - the rent covers all utilities (they have assumed a certain cost for utility based on some logic that assumes the tenant not being at home majority of the time; they're then saying - if you're going to spend more time at home, we assume you're going to go over our utility estimate).

Also, it's a 1 bedroom and they have a target renter in mind. Maybe they aren't expecting (planning) to rent to elderly folks or disabled people; Maybe their target is a working professional.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#33

Post by skullone »

NearAP wrote: post #31
skullone wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast is a poor example, and a wizard asking "do you game, you need 1Gb!". Lol

How is Comcast a poor example? It is a major internet service provider in the Bay Area and in some places is the only one available. For better or for worse, you have to go with what is available in your area.

Besides a data cap in some areas, it's not really metered, not a variable bill like water or electricity if you wfh

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#34

Post by therealpygon »

NearAP wrote: post #32
therealpygon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point being made is how this is different from stay-at-home parents? I would also add another example: home-bound elderly or disabled people? Is it acceptable to charge those categories a different rate, given the reasoning being applied is simply “being home more”?

I'm afraid I don't understand this logic. Their own logic seems to be - the rent covers all utilities (they have assumed a certain cost for utility based on some logic that assumes the tenant not being at home majority of the time; they're then saying - if you're going to spend more time at home, we assume you're going to go over our utility estimate). Also, it's a 1 bedroom and they have a target renter in mind. May…

Elderly and disabled people don’t ever live in one-bedrooms or ADUs? Also, where did you find all this information on their targeted renter — did I miss that in the article or did you make it up for your argument?

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#35

Post by NearAP »

skullone wrote: post #33
NearAP wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Comcast a poor example? It is a major internet service provider in the Bay Area and in some places is the only one available. For better or for worse, you have to go with what is available in your area.

Besides a data cap in some areas, it's not really metered, not a variable bill like water or electricity if you wfh

The point is - they have different plans at different rates (prices) and they base it on what they believe you use it for. So you can’t just be dismissive of someone thinking that internet access for someone who works from home might cost more than if you don’t work from home. It may be wrong but it is logical and possible in the usecase/context being discussed

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#36

Post by SR2Z »

skullone wrote: post #33
NearAP wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Comcast a poor example? It is a major internet service provider in the Bay Area and in some places is the only one available. For better or for worse, you have to go with what is available in your area.

Besides a data cap in some areas, it's not really metered, not a variable bill like water or electricity if you wfh

Comcast does data caps everywhere except places where its customers have alternatives. It's insane that they're allowed to charge monthly for providing a speed and then also set the data caps at like ~3h of continuous full use.

Re: New rental trend? A $200 'work-from-home fee' tacked on to Bay Area lease

#37

Post by tom_ »

NearAP wrote: post #25
tom_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who pays per byte for internet?! The other points are well made, though. The lesson, I suppose: bills included is a bad idea. The incentives are misaligned all round.

Some Internet providers have different rates for different capacities/bandwidth. Last time I used COMCAST, their wizard walked you through different use-cases and you got different packages based on the type of stuff you said you used it for.

My thinking was that the landlord would be providing the same internet either way, work from home or no, and it costs the same whatever happens. Sure, you'll maybe use it more if you're working from home - but that costs exactly the same as, say, not using it at all.

(It is possible that the landlord will note that you ticked the WFH box, and spend part of the extra $200/mo on upgrading the broadband at the property to 900 Mbit/sec fibre or whatever. But I just don't think this very likely.)

Post reply on HN