1Mb Broadband Access Becomes Legal Right In Finland 875
An anonymous reader writes "Starting next July, every person in Finland will have the right to a one-megabit broadband connection, according to the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Finland is the world's first country to create laws guaranteeing broadband access. The Finnish people are also legally guaranteed a 100Mb broadband connection by the end of 2015."
Lucky (Score:4, Interesting)
Lucky them.
Here in NYC, Time Warner just released a 50/5 Mb DOCSIS 3.0 plan... For a whopping cost of $99.95/month.
Re:I understand these modern times and all... (Score:4, Interesting)
This allows the government to interact with the population online, without anybody having an excuse of no net access.
Re:I understand these modern times and all... (Score:1, Interesting)
You don't need it to survive, but you do need it to participate in a modern democracy.
Look at all the access to your government you lose without internet. Libraries are losing funding--the one in my hometown closed last year. Many universities make you give up constitutional rights in order to enter them--those libraries are out. And to boot, they aren't accessible to much of the country.
And realistically--I'm glad you don't need it in order to survive. I have some minor skill with gardening--but I'm not confident I could grow my own food successfully, and I'm definitely no good at hunting. Not that there's any land near me I could hunt on. I'm an IT guy--and I need a computer, books, internet, IRC, and google in order to continue my professional advancement and stay within reasonable distance of the top of my competitive food chain. You kill the internet, and well...I've got enough cash I wouldn't go hungry or homeless for a few years (at least, until I went to school immediately trying to find training for another job...)--but I would be royally screwed.
No--if you're serious about running an open democracy, people need a *right* to the internet. As it is, all the other media out there--be it Fox, NPR, CNN and even the BBC...they're just...they suffer from horrible selection bias.
Universal service obligations (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this just an extension of the universal service obligations commonly associated with telephone, electricity etc.?
Having said that, I don't really see the need for 100 Mbps internet access for everyone - it's expensive to provide, and what very important services does it provide that 1 Mbps won't?
Great! But... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you have the legal right to a broadband connection, do you have the legal right to get a computer to use that connection?
Lapland? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how are they going to guarantee it to reindeer shepherds in the far north of Finland, living in the taiga good 100km away from nearest electric power...
Re:Meanwhile in America (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not a right (Score:3, Interesting)
The right to free speech and the right to bear arms are both natural by-products of the right to own property (incl. self-ownership), so there's no point in considering them separately. The "right" to a fair trial isn't really a right at all, but rather a procedure which allows those who follow it to absolve themselves of guilt in the eyes of society should they happen to respond in apparent self-defense to a perceived injury and later discover that their response was unfounded. They're still in the wrong, and liable to make reparations, but holding a fair trial protects them from accusations of malicious intent and the corresponding possibility of retribution in kind.
The right to own property, in turn, is an inevitable consequence of scarcity. Ownership is, at its essence, the right to use something, or more precisely the right to use it up. Absence of formal property rights would not change the fact that only one individual can effectively use a given item of property at a time; the only way to avoid denying others use of the property is for no one to use it at all, which is inherently self-defeating. Given that someone must have the right to use the property, the traditional homesteading & contractual transfer system of allocating property rights is the least arbitrary and most consistent system available, which leaves the least room for disagreement and conflict.
There's also the argument of reciprocation: if you argue that rights aren't universal, that others do not have the rights you claim for yourself, then others can make the same argument against you. On the other hand, if rights are universal, then you cannot argue that others do not have the right to free speech, property, etc. while simultaneously claiming these rights for yourself. By making a claim to free speech (which by itself may be offensive to some) you must simultaneously argue that others have a right to speak in ways others may find offensive; by claiming a right to the property you say you need to survive (minimal food, water, air) and which you desire but do not need (clothes, shelter, etc.) you must simultaneously argue that others have a right to their property.
Re:Idle hands (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if it isn't the most important thing for them to be doing, it's a lot better than the kind of laws that idle politicians pass in some other countries.
You're mincing words for reasons of political bias (Score:3, Interesting)
Is equal access to roads a right? How about waterways? Electricity? Water?
The internet is just the newest form of a utility. It's an information network that has become completely necessary to anyone in the modern world, just as telephones and televisions were before it.
When you guarantee that everyone has access to something, the costs per person go down. Way down. Because on many levels, socialization works very, very well, especially where infrastructure is concerned. Businesses have access to larger markets. Quality of life goes up. Everyone benefits, even after the additional costs of investment.
If you really dislike governments that much, move to somewhere where there isn't a powerful state. You'll also find that there isn't any cheap infrastructure, because there's no entity wealthy enough to provide the initial investment.
Re:Bastards! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hopefully this also means that those three-strike laws wont be possible, since getting broadband access should be a legal right.
Legal rights and privileges are often conditional on good behavior - and they can be forfeit.
Your "Right to Travel" isn't a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.
As basic as Postal and Library service (Score:5, Interesting)
In my view, Internet access is more important and powerful than the postal and library services combined. Surely if the government provides those basic services through taxation, a basic Internet communications infrastructure should also.
Re:Not a right (Score:2, Interesting)
The gist of the matter is that the "right" part of post is quite a strong word in the US, not so in some other coutries. The political language is also a different animal from the legal one. The submitters story is about commercially available service levels, not anything similar to human rights. It is basically legislation controlling markets for telecommunication services. Furthermore, I personally have never heard about the 100 Mbps availability by 2015 guarantee before. I guess slashdot has become my main source about Finnish politics. No wonder I didn't vote the last time..
Re:Where do we sign up in the US?! (Score:4, Interesting)
What about personal choice? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't they always chant population density as to reason why many people are stuck with dial-up?
While there are indeed areas where cable or DSL isn't available, I think you're seriously underestimating the number of people that use dial-up simply because they don't see the need for broadband, nor the point in paying for it. I think you'd be quite surprised at the number of people that would tell you "Look, I don't want cable. I check email and look at the occasional news website.
Re:Lucky (Score:2, Interesting)
If that's supposed to be bad, I'm jealous.
Here I get 3mb cable with a 20gb monthly cap for $70 per month,
Ha! I top that. I live on a 8 square mile island in the Caribbean. I have ADSL that maxes out at 25 kBytes/sec, I guess that is about ISDN speed. I pay $86 for that... Oh, and that is not counting the $27 subscription for the land line that I need to get ADSL on it and I never use. So essentially, I pay $113 for 256kb. But we do have nicer weather than Finland and the rum is way cheaper here.
Re:You're actually right (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's not entirely true. Europeans are voting for more right wing parties, but that's mostly the European population is shifting than anything else. I doubt many Europeans have a problem with the services they receive. What they have a problem with is the services all those foreigners(defined as anyone with a different skin colour) receive.
Europe is having a bit of a difficult time of it at the moment because of a mix of things. For one a few countries let their socialism go a bit too far, beyond reasonable services for everyone and reasonable workers rights into the usual inefficiency and over protection which destroyed most of the US automobile industry a few decades ago. For another, a lot of them suffer from the same problems the US has in that they don't actually make anything that anyone else wants anymore and they're not entirely sure what to do about it. The UK built its entire economy on exporting financial instruments and is currently pretty much screwed.
Whenever things get bad people start getting a bit xenophobic and despite claims about the cosmopolitan nature of Europe, they're as guilty of it as the rest of us.
I live in Australia and we have a fairly reasonable balance between the two(which might be why we've currently got the best performing western economy in the world). There's reasonable protections for workers, but for the most part, employers have rights too(there's a few issues here that need to be fixed, but the previous government instead of trying to fix the problems tried to absolutely dismantle workers rights and got kicked out so it's a bit of a sensitive subject at the moment). We've got excellent public health care, but if you don't want waiting lists or want private rooms or things like that you can pay for private health insurance(in fact if the government feels you should have private health insurance and you don't they'll tax you extra to encourage you to get it). Again it's not perfect, but it works pretty well.
Having the government take care of every aspect of your life doesn't work. It never has and it probably never will. Having the government provide a safety net of basic services so that people who aren't Donald Trump get a second change is a very good thing. Getting basic infrastructure and services provided by an efficient central provider and available equally and fairly to everyone is good as well, not just for individuals, but for businesses small and large. Government infrastructure is the only reason that competing telephone companies and ISPs can exist, and the US is actually better at that at the moment than we are. Sometimes it's best to buy once instead of many times, and since the government is somewhat more beholden to its shareholders(everyone) than most corporations, it's not as bad having them as a single point of service.
Re:Lucky (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually our internet isn't half bad. Aside from the general problem of the half a second latency geography adds to most connections. We pay a bit more, and we have caps, but for the most part we actually get what we paid for. You don't in the US.
Re:You're mincing words for reasons of political b (Score:3, Interesting)
No. That's why there are taxes on the fuel you burn when you use those roads. That's why there are toll roads. That's why some roads are paid for by the business that needs it to be paved into their warehouse area or housing development. That's why there are substantial fees in some places to get a license to drive or to renew the registration on the vehicle you'll use on those roads. Don't want to pay those costs? You don't have to. And you don't get to use the roads.
How about waterways? See above. Electricity? Water?
No. You have to pay for those. And if you build a new house or put up a new business, you have to pay a lot to have those utilities extended to your doorstep, if you want them.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
> No honestly, do you guys have fat unattractive girls over there that no one photographs?
As an Englishman living in Finland, I have to admit, the women here *are* quite attractive, on the whole.
I certainly can't think of anyone who is all of: fat, unattractive, girl, not photographed, *and* over here.
The beach in summer....wow...just WOW....and, remember, the day lasts until 10 or 11 pm in summer.....we don't need no stinkin broadband, 1Mb or otherwise. Oh, right...the winter...yeah, fair enough.
Re:Libertarianism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Having spent my childhood in communism (brought in with by the soviet tanks), I can tell you that any system that relies on people being good or ethical is utopic.
One of the early communism slogans was "you contribute as much as you can, you gets as much as you require". Everyone was supposed to work for the common good and the state was supposed to divide resources in a sane and logical manner to avoid waste and maximize efficiency. We all know how that turned out - and all because people want to be more equal than the others (as a side-note, Orwell was a genius; you will never appreciate 1984 or Animal Farm the way someone who has lived them will).
Back to libertarianism, it suffers from the same thing: it requires people to have a work ethic and personal responsibility. Some people are like that, but some (many?) are not. They will gladly game the system.
Capitalism (in its broadest sense, let's not get into details) works because it relies on greed. It may be sad, but greed is good motivator...
Re:You're actually right (Score:4, Interesting)
""Thank god I live in a country where I'm free to lose my home if my wife or kid gets sick, just as our Founding Fathers intended."
You say that in a mocking way, but you're actually right. Freedom includes the risk of losing as well as the possibility of winning.
Or, you can turn your life over to a government with the promises of all your needs being taken care of from cradle to grave. All you have to give them is... everything.
Ok, either you're trolling or smoking something you shouldn't smoke. Anyway, I'll bite. You apparently claim that someone else paying your medical bill restricts your freedom. Please, explain how. You realise, don't you, that nobody will force medical care upon you, unless you're seriously mentally ill. You're also free to pay the bill yourself, if you want to.
The problem, for admirers of this system such as yourself, anyway, is that Europe itself is starting to question such an arrangement. People are beginning to wonder why they can't have a good medical care system without massive government expenditures. They're starting to wonder just why it's necessary to be paying so much in taxes. They're starting to wonder why starting a business has to be a bureaucratic nightmare. And they're starting to vote appropriately.
You're making this up as you go, aren't you? Firstly, please explain which "bureaucratic nightmare" you're referring to. You can't, because you just made it up, or you got it from Fox "news". Secondly, it may be true that conservative parties get more votes now than twenty years ago, but guess what! They all agree that American healthcare is a disaster and should be avoided like the plague. Oh and one more thing. Please don't refer to Europe one country. There are tens of countries in Europe, all with their own legislation, bureaucracies and healthcare systems. They have one thing in common though, all have better healthcare systems than the US does.
Re:Universal service obligations (Score:1, Interesting)
Posting as Anon to keep moderation. Disclaimer; I'm a Finn.
I am under impression that there are plans to move several old technologies - including TV-signals, phones etc. to go through the Internet on the long term. Currently, the Finnish Broadcasting Company is heavily investing into moving its programmes to Internet as equal to the old-fashioned TV/radio-thingy. This direction will probably continue in the future, and the Government wants to be ready.
However, the most prominent reason (the one struddled in the media hereabouts) for 100M Internet is the understanding shared by many that big numbers in the Internet-speed are directly propotional to technological advancement as a whole.
Finland's economy is almost fully built on lumber companies and electronics (Nokia). These days the lumber companies are moving the factories to equador, while Nokia isn't doing as well as it used to. New companies are needed, so Government tries to get the same "the best country when it comes to modern tech!"-feeling back it did in the year 1999. Good infrastructure is seen as essential for this to happen.
Exambles for companies; server-farms (Google just bought a factory from a lumber company, to give an high profile examble), "Virtual board rooms" as to save in flight tickets (Finland isn't New Zealand, but it's no Swizerland either!) and so on.
Finland doesn't have good weather, reputation for happy citizens etc. You have to attract new people and companies SOMEHOW. Anyway, you have to spend third of the year indoors, so you might as well have fun.
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Interesting)
I live in Finland and I've seen plentiful unattractive girls.
But then again, I also know English women, and honestly dude - you've got skewed views, to put it mildly.
Re:Universal service obligations (Score:3, Interesting)
The 'expense' is mostly artificial. Laying the lines costs money. Going from 5mb to a few gb is a relatively trivial expense if theres already copper in the ground. Got fibre? The sky is the limit. The upgrade cost once the cable is laid is dirt cheap as the technology the supports it can do things faster on the same wire/fibre.
Copper isn't a great upgrade path, but its certainly doable, fiber is far easier.
By 2015, 100MB sounds about like a fair offering in a sane environment, the technology is already well beyond whats needed to provide it.
With that said, I certainly don't see it as a requirement. Of course, I think considering Internet access or even telephone access something that should be considered a right is just completely off the silly scale, so i may not be the best gauge to use.
Re:You're actually right (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea of negative and positive liberty is not universally accepted, and in fact contains very deep flaws.
Firstly, negative liberty requires enforcement, and that enforcement is not free. Everyone pays taxes for a policeman to protect their property, but clearly the millionaire with his mansions gets more out of that arrangement than the minimum wage stiff living in a rented flat. So what appears to be a negative liberty is in fact identical to a positive one. You can do this for literally any 'negative' liberty.
If you want a more detailed look at the failure of 'negative liberty' to live up to its ideals, I can recommend 'The Trap', a series of three documentary films by Adam Curtis. Seeing as AFAIK it has never been released on DVD, you can torrent it with a clear conscience.
Re:You're actually right (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing that the people of Europe are beginning to question is the bureaucracy related to running a business. Outside of that, they LIKE their health care system. They LIKE their social safety nets. All the Europeans i've talked to were horrified by the situation in the US and stated they would never switch to something similar.
You speak of higher taxes... but look at the average paycheck. I looked at mine, and after all the federal and state taxes, employee provided health insurance premiums, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, 401k deduction and a bunch of other small things, my net pay was about 50% of gross. About the same as in countries like Finland. So basically I am paying the same amount of money for what are arguably inferior services and inferior social security net. Most of which I stand to lose, if I ever lose my job.
I'm not sure how you can claim that people of Finland are less free. What is it you can do, that they cannot? What powers does the Finnish government have, that the US Government does not have?
Re:Where do we sign up in the US?! (Score:2, Interesting)
There's he typical US attitude!
The only problem is that if all the farmers, miners, manufacturing plant workers, etc. who live and work in the country all move into the city and become lawyers and accountants, we won't have any food/metal/oil etc. I'm not sure about you, but I like to eat, so maybe we should give those people out in the country some incentive to stay there and grow our food.