Nobody's forced to live in apartments that aren't up to code either, but that doesn't mean that we allow slumlords to squat on what could otherwise be useful real estate.

Due to the very limited amount of rental space, and the difficulty of constructing more of it, rentals are a heavily regulated market. If you don't want to deal with regulation, perhaps you should pick a line of business with a lower barrier for entry.

While you have a point, you're assuming that everybody is at liberty to live where they want to while making a living the best way they can. I too wish it was the case, but not everybody can work remotely (or even has the desire to), or otherwise can take the most appropriate job while not compromising on their housing situation.

What if all landlords in your area have independently reached these exclusivity agreements with a single provider? What choice do you have then?

You're assuming said options exist, depending on where you live, they normally don't.

I agree with you. The apartment I recently moved into made it clear up front that hey had an exclusive cable and wireless provider. But the cost of the service is bundled into my rent. It's a great apartment in a great location and still cheaper than other apartments around so I decided I didn't care that much about choosing my own provider. It's not ideal and I thinks it's a shady practice, but I'm willing to live with it for a year or two.

In cities with not enough housing (like, say, SF), then someone generally is forced to live there since alternative options may be slim to none.

"Nobody is forced to live in these apartments."

Ahh, the old, "No one forced someone to live there, so everything that happens is A OK."

That's not an argument, and that's not justification. That's just you admitting this is a shitty practice that needs to stop.