Sounds like you don't understand the responsibility is on the particular company to provide redundancy. If the local loop or ISP goes out (which it can for a variety of reasons, and government control won't change that one bit), it's up to that particular company to decide if they want to pay for a secondary or tertiary means of providing Internet. That costs money. Not every company is willing to pay it, but most mid-large size do already by using redundant providers.
Being necessary doesn't mean it should be a public utility. Food is necessary too, but I'd rather not have bread lines.
Which is worse? No Internet, or no water? (Score:4, Interesting)
But no Internet access? For many companies that would mean great difficulty in doing the normal work.
Internet access has become a necessary public utility.
Re:Which is worse? No Internet, or no water? (Score:2)
Sounds like you don't understand the responsibility is on the particular company to provide redundancy. If the local loop or ISP goes out (which it can for a variety of reasons, and government control won't change that one bit), it's up to that particular company to decide if they want to pay for a secondary or tertiary means of providing Internet. That costs money. Not every company is willing to pay it, but most mid-large size do already by using redundant providers.
Being necessary doesn't mean it should be a public utility. Food is necessary too, but I'd rather not have bread lines.