Today, if you sign up with an Internet Service Provider (Retail), you are first and foremost bombarded with a series of protection waivers and agreements that are interlinked (badly cited) online. Furthermore there are situations where they implicitly ask you to agree to opt out of Part 5 of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection & Services Act (which for me is like saying "Oh we prefer as an employer to just ignore the discrimination act, just sign here" ..as isn't that kind of an important "you can't do that" moment? As part of these agreements you are asked to abide by, there are various clauses that are consistent amongst all providers I've researched. The specific area of focus is fault or service warrantees that essentially state that when the retailer cannot resolve the issue that is "outside their reasonable control" they are somewhat absolved of any recourse by you as a consumer. Further to this point, if a wholesaler (who provides the physical connectivity) has a major fault, the retailer isn't responsible. eg: the relationship is consumer -> retailer -> wholesaler -> national network. The part that I find confusing is the definition of "reasonable", more to the point what is considered "normal" vs. "abnormal" in service availability. For instance, say you sign up with an internet service provider and during off-peak periods, you have 90% average speed. Then during peak periods this is reduced to say 10% speed. Is this abnormal or normal? Who decides the cut-off for this and more over how is the consumer afforded any rights to argue unreasonable given the capabilities of speed have shown or proven to be capable as that being "advertised for sale". As nothing in the contracts or legislation, I can find thus far states anyone is responsible. The implication is that you lodge faults via Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman, but that's simply the body that ensures the resolution commences, yet it doesn't appear that they can argue or state that answer. I've also looked at ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority), but the closest thing I could find is TCP Codes (Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code) which imply that retailer is expected to adhere to certain standards - yet - these don't articulate in detail what "reasonable" and/or "normal/abnormal" is. Moreover, if a retailer sells a package that gives you 100 Mbps in speed download but during peak times can only achieve 10 Mbps while not advertising this fact, what is the recourse for the consumer here? As it seems there are zero protections in place for consumer(s) with something as fundamental is basic internet in Australia.