PDA

View Full Version : Broadband a "legal right" in Finland




Cdn_for_liberty
07-01-2010, 08:41 PM
From 1 July every Finn will have the right to access to a 1Mbps (megabit per second) broadband connection.

Finland has vowed to connect everyone to a 100Mbps connection by 2015.

In the UK the government has promised a minimum connection of at least 2Mbps to all homes by 2012 but has stopped short of enshrining this as a right in law.

The Finnish deal means that from 1 July all telecommunications companies will be obliged to provide all residents with broadband lines that can run at a minimum 1Mbps speed.

Broadband commitment

Speaking to the BBC, Finland's communication minister Suvi Linden explained the thinking behind the legislation: "We considered the role of the internet in Finns everyday life. Internet services are no longer just for entertainment.

"Finland has worked hard to develop an information society and a couple of years ago we realised not everyone had access," she said.

It is believed up to 96% of the population are already online and that only about 4,000 homes still need connecting to comply with the law.

In the UK internet penetration stands at 73%.

The British government has agreed to provide everyone with a minimum 2Mbps broadband connection by 2012 but it is a commitment rather than a legally binding ruling.

"The UK has a universal service obligation which means virtually all communities will have broadband," said a spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Making broadband a legal right could have implications for countries that plan tough action on illegal file-sharing.

Both the UK and France have said they may cut off or limit the internet connections of people who persistently download music or films for free.

The Finnish government has adopted a more gentle approach.

"We will have a policy where operators will send letters to illegal file-sharers but we are not planning on cutting off access," said Ms Linden.

A poll conducted for the BBC World Service earlier this year found that almost four in five people around the world believed that access to the internet is a fundamental right.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10461048.stm

Looks like the EU is going to hell in a hand basket and they don't care. (yes, i realize Finland doesn't represent every EU nation but i'm sure eventually they'll adopt the same idea)

:D

james1906
07-01-2010, 08:44 PM
So if the gov gives it, then they can regulate it and take it away?

brandon
07-01-2010, 08:45 PM
NPR did a piece making the case for "universal broadband" in the US. They aired it on my drive home a few days ago.

WaltM
07-01-2010, 08:50 PM
that's what happens when you give people rights, they're never satisfied

awake
07-01-2010, 08:50 PM
Once it is a "right" the government must ensure its issuance. It is the fastest way to nationalize something while duping the public.

ClayTrainor
07-01-2010, 08:52 PM
that's what happens when you give people rights, they're never satisfied

That's what happens when people think rights are "given" or "granted". ;)

WaltM
07-01-2010, 08:55 PM
That's what happens when people think rights are "given" or "granted". ;)

if it's physically possible to take it away, it's granted and given.

Cdn_for_liberty
07-01-2010, 08:59 PM
So if the gov gives it, then they can regulate it and take it away?

yup

this is another reason why net neutrality needs to stay down because net neutrality will be a trojan horse to government-run broadband. I think it was Shelly Roche from bytestyle.tv who said this on an old episode of freedom watch. People who support net neutrality would want the internet to run like a utility service, free from ads and no capitalistic component to it.

WaltM
07-01-2010, 09:08 PM
yup

this is another reason why net neutrality needs to stay down because net neutrality will be a trojan horse to government-run broadband.


Why is it always anarchy vs tyranny? can't there be a middle ground?



I think it was Shelly Roche from bytestyle.tv who said this on an old episode of freedom watch. People who support net neutrality would want the internet to run like a utility service, free from ads and no capitalistic component to it.

there's some truth to it, so what?

who's against capitalism when they're the benefitters? Who's for capitalism when they're the losers?

ClayTrainor
07-01-2010, 09:12 PM
if it's physically possible to take it away, it's granted and given.

Natural Rights do not physically exist, so it is not possible to grant them, or take them away. (positive rights are different) They are a conceptual construct like compassion, freedom, love, mathematics, the scientific method, etc.. Natural Rights are not physical, they are conceptual tools we use to help understand and preserve our well-being.

Clearly you adhere to a very specific, physical definition of rights.


all rights are granted by government (or whoever has the most force)

ClayTrainor
07-01-2010, 09:35 PM
Why is it always anarchy vs tyranny? can't there be a middle ground?

Not when this so called "middle ground" involves allowing certain people to use coercion and force against other people that have committed no crime.



there's some truth to it, so what?
Truth to what? You think the government should regulate the internet like a utility service?



who's against capitalism when they're the benefitters?

Confused / Misinformed people.

http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/United-States/Michael-Moore/michael-moore-2.jpg



Who's for capitalism when they're the losers?

Intelligent and Informed people

WaltM
07-01-2010, 09:55 PM
Natural Rights do not physically exist, so it is not possible to grant them, or take them away. (positive rights are different) They are a conceptual construct like compassion, freedom, love, mathematics, the scientific method, etc.. Natural Rights are not physical, they are conceptual tools we use to help understand and preserve our well-being.

Clearly you adhere to a very specific, physical definition of rights.

I dont know if life is physical, but you can certainly take it from somebody.

WaltM
07-01-2010, 09:57 PM
Not when this so called "middle ground" involves allowing certain people to use coercion and force against other people that have committed no crime.


So as long as it's not coercion against non-crime, middle grounds are possible?




Truth to what? You think the government should regulate the internet like a utility service?


No, truth to the saying that people who want net neutrality want something for free with no profit or capitalist connotation to internet services (just as people who pirate creative works want to pay nothing for it).



Confused / Misinformed people.

http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/United-States/Michael-Moore/michael-moore-2.jpg


Good example, I don't think he's against it, he's against it when it doesn't suit him



Intelligent and Informed people

I call those people willing slaves, I'm not one of them.

ClayTrainor
07-01-2010, 10:08 PM
I dont know if life is physical, but you can certainly take it from somebody.

Life is indeed physical, you are correct. Natural rights on the other hand, are no more real than the words I am typing, nothing more than an idea.

We may have the idea that we are entitled to certain rights, but these ideas aren't physical. Natural rights are merely an essential property of Liberty and Freedom, just as... for example... divisible by 2 is an essential property for even numbers.

ClayTrainor
07-01-2010, 10:14 PM
So as long as it's not coercion against non-crime, middle grounds are possible?


I don't know what you mean by middle ground. Elaborate. But yes, that sounds reasonable to me.



No, truth to the saying that people who want net neutrality want something for free with no profit or capitalist connotation to internet services (just as people who pirate creative works want to pay nothing for it).

Okay, cool. That seems accurate. Obviously the internet can't be provided for free... so they gotta find some way to pay for the various expenses. I'm assuming taxation is their genius entrepreneurial plan? lol



Good example, I don't think he's against it, he's against it when it doesn't suit him


I think he's kind of ignorant and only willing to read and truly consider arguments from people on the left. There's a video of someone asking him about Ron Paul, and he wouldn't even listen or consider him, because of the "R" attached to him.


I call those people willing slaves, I'm not one of them.

If only they had more socialism, right?

karat32
07-01-2010, 10:27 PM
Basicly the communication ministry has put minimum limits on speed/price, only going so far as saying these must be fair/reasonable, no specifics. Yet.

There is no government ISP you can use if you are too poor to pay for your internet connection. Just loads of welfare.

cindy25
07-02-2010, 04:07 AM
is this free? or just the right to purchase?

The USA has always had postal services as a right, in that the USPS must deliver everywhere. and providing that is in the constitution.