That's why the fight for net neutrality is so important.
Not for the tenants themselves.
Tenants need permission from the owner to install charging infrastructure, and the owner has little incentive to allow competition because the vendor gives them a cut of the [overpriced] charging fee. Even California's progressive tenant EV charger law[1] doesn't apply if 10% (!) of parking spots already have chargers.
Your example of pay laundry is instructive. In theory laundry service remains interchangeable (after all, "water/electric service is already running to the buildings"), but in practice the owner simply forbids tenants from installing their own laundry machines (typically citing flood risk).
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
Alas, I would have thought the same for ISPs. Any reason why EV charging won't naturally evolve into a similar overpriced, regulator capturing, locale-by-locale monopoly?
I'm talking about the subset of the EV owners without home charging. Currently this number is small, but as battery prices drop and EVs become the de-facto 'regular car,' there's ~60% of the population who have no "at-cost" home charging (being locked-in to whatever exclusive vendor their apartment complex chooses).
In this respect EVs are very different from gasoline vehicles, and I say this as a big supporter of EVs. I can drive across town to buy gas, but I can't park my car across town overnight.
The problem with competing firms is that eventually someone wins.