Redditor Gets Long-Overdue Revenge On Neighbor By Preventing Them From Getting High-Sp*ed Internet

After years of isolation from the digital world, a man finally fought to bring high-speed internet to his remote home, a symbol of connection and progress in an otherwise disconnected life. The long road to installation was a testament to his determination, but it also uncovered the fragile boundaries of neighborly respect when his closest neighbor, once indifferent, now sought to ride on his hard-earned success without contributing a single step.

This story is not merely about cables and signals; it is about the hard-earned pride of self-reliance clashing with the opportunism lurking in human nature. It captures a quiet battle over fairness and boundaries, where one man’s refusal to share what he painstakingly built becomes a powerful stand for dignity and the value of personal effort.

Aita for “preventing” my neighbor from getting high speed internet?

According to Dr. Harriet Lerner, a clinical psychologist known for her work on boundaries, ‘Boundaries are the right to say no to anything you do not want to do, or to do something you do not want to do.’ In this situation, the poster is exercising a clear boundary regarding their property and the infrastructure they paid to install. The historical context provided—where the neighbor declined to assist with the initial, costly joint effort years ago—establishes a pattern of non-reciprocity which justifies the poster’s current decision to prioritize self-interest over communal obligation.

The core conflict here involves the tension between transactional fairness (retribution for past behavior) and altruistic social norms (‘be a good neighbor’). The poster invested significant time and capital (both in the lost $18k deposit and the recent $60k worth of self-performed excavation) to solve a problem caused by geographical isolation. The neighbor, by contrast, is now attempting to benefit from the poster’s substantial effort without offering equivalent compensation or having demonstrated willingness to cooperate previously. This dynamic involves significant emotional labor on the poster’s part if they were to agree, potentially leading to resentment later.

The poster’s action, while motivated by pettiness, is fundamentally sound from a property rights and investment protection standpoint. The constructive recommendation for future interactions would be to clearly state a revised offer: if the neighbor wishes access now, they must compensate the poster for a portion of the original installation cost (perhaps a calculated percentage of the $60k saved through self-excavation) or agree to a formal, paid easement agreement. This shifts the interaction from a purely emotional refusal to a firm, professional business negotiation.

HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.

They were happy with their DSL until they saw you basically setup infrastructure they could piggy back off of.

The original poster is standing firm on their refusal to allow their neighbor access to the newly installed high-speed internet infrastructure, citing past refusal of cooperation from the neighbor as the primary justification for their current stance. This decision pits the poster’s desire for personal boundary protection and retribution against the societal expectation of neighborly assistance.

Given the significant personal investment made by the poster to secure the service, is it justifiable to withhold access based on previous uncooperative behavior, or does the concept of good neighborliness require setting aside past grievances to facilitate shared essential services?