Broadband isn’t essential – but poorest should still get it cheaper

Every time there’s a debate about making broadband cheaper for society’s poorest, I hear the same argument against it, which is that access to the internet isn’t as essential a right as being able to get water, gas and electricity. This point cropped up again in ‘Question of the Fortnight’, Issue 488 (‘Should people on benefitss get cheaper broadband?’). It sounds like a compelling case: people would die if they couldn’t get clean water or keep warm in the winter, but nobody would die if they’re deprived access to Youtube.

So, I think we should stop using the word ‘essential’ to describe the internet, and use something that better indicates its importance, like ‘desirable’. That way we’ll avoid the dangers of overstating its significance, which has always given opponents of subsidised broadband ammunition to use.

I know what I’m talking about, because I’m a latecomer to the internet. I went online for the first time about five years ago, having previously survived happily without it. But nonow I couldn’t imagine lilife without it. And that’s whwhy I support the Gogovernment’s plans to gigive people a legal right to demand broadband. Nonot because I need the ininternet, but because it mamakes life so much easier anand more enjoyable.

Now you could say that lots of things make life more enjoyable – like swimming, bingo and visiting country homes. And people on benefits (pensioners aside) don’t get help paying for these. But these are all hobbies, in effect, and so if someone lived too far from a swimming pool, they wouldn’t have the right to demand that the council builds one on their doorstep.

The internet is different, and belongs in a category of its own. It’s one notch down from essentials like water and gas, but more important than hobbies. Everyone can live without it, but nobody should be forced to because they can’t afford it. Doris Larkin