There is a (perverse?) incentive to have an always-on network connected to services that can be metered and billed -- that is how we get monthjly recurring reve

There is a (perverse?) incentive to have an always-on network connected to services that can be metered and billed -- that is how we get monthjly recurring revenue. Even hardware companies want in on that -- think HP printers and authorized toner cartridges. A different perspective on this shows up in a recent HN submission, "Start your own Internet Resiliency Club" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287395). The author of the article talks about what it would take to have working internet in a warzone where internet communications are targeted. While we can frame this as whether we should design our digital products to accommodate people with iffy internet, I think seeing this as a resiliency problem that affects our whole civilization is a better perspective. It is no longer about accomodating people who are underserved, but rather, should we really be building for a future where the network is assumed to be always-connected? Do we really want our technologies to be concentrated in the hands of the few?