Why should we pay for disrupted Internet service?

Editor: I usually refrain from public discourse, not because I think it is a bad thing, but because it has now become abused. Far more passionate and informed already grapple with the big issues:politics, religion, justice and the like.

I address a much smaller issue. Internet service. We are in the Age of Information. There is no greater conduit or important infrastructure or platform to facilitate this new era than the Internet. It is not a luxury; it is a basic necessity and essential component of the civilized world, on par with pipe-borne water. A vital social utility.{{more}}

To have constant disruptions, or to be sat waiting for two to three days for a call from a technician is unacceptable. This is more so when we consider the nature of broadband Internet, as opposed to electricity or water. The other two we pay for the units we consume. When our Internet service is disrupted, we should be compensated at the very minimum for the period of our disruption. Having lived elsewhere, one in some instances would automatically receive a month’s credit for each day of disrupted service.

Why is it understood that if I go overseas for a week and do not use my Internet service, I am still obliged to pay for it, but it is not equally automatic and understood if my service is disrupted for a week I am not obliged to pay for that period?

Where is the parity? The speeds advertised and paid for are spun fantasy, far out of the reach of

cold hard reality. Internet speaks to connectivity. Service speaks for itself. If we have neither connectivity nor service, what are we paying for?

Five hundred odd years ago, Columbus promised a lot of things he didn’t deliver on and set in motion a chain of events, to the detriment of the indigenous people. It’s 1492 all over again. Perhaps we should not be surprised.

Disconnected