Finland makes internet access a right!

[Arcade22]

Starting next July, every person in Finland will have the right to a one-megabit broadband connection, says the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Finland is the world's first country to create laws guaranteeing broadband access.

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/10/1mb_broadband_access_becomes_legal_right_1080940.h tml

Neat!

[theprestige]

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/10/1mb_broadband_access_becomes_legal_right_1080940.h tml

Neat!
Call it a "right" all you like. Doesn't change what it really is: A privilege or entitlement, provided by the Finnish government, and paid for by whichever of its citizens are being productive.

Which is totally fine with me; I just wish they wouldn't obfuscate the issue with this bogus "rights" terminology.

[Praktik]

Good on Finland, birth country of my mother, land of cellphones and vodka...

I can see how this will be a really good thing - especially too for businesses and orgs that deal with the public, you can be guaranteed your customer base will be able to visit your website, or if you're the government, that they can do the online forms instead of having to do it in person.

[DC]

Call it a "right" all you like. Doesn't change what it really is: A privilege or entitlement, provided by the Finnish government, and paid for by whichever of its citizens are being productive.

Which is totally fine with me; I just wish they wouldn't obfuscate the issue with this bogus "rights" terminology.

no, it is a right, when the law say it is a right.

[Francesca R]

As far as I can tell it is not publicly funding this, but applying a service requirement to every telecom provider's operating charter.

No mention of price controls or whether telcos can charge more to rural dwellers.

I don't think it is a great policy myself.

[DC]

As far as I can tell it is not publicly funding this, but applying a service requirement to every telecom provider's operating charter.

No mention of price controls or whether telcos can charge more to rural dwellers.

I don't think it is a great policy myself.

i think it has more to do with when you run out of money.

and they Distraint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraint) your stuff, then they cannopt take away your Inet connection.

[drkitten]

Call it a "right" all you like. Doesn't change what it really is: A privilege or entitlement, provided by the Finnish government, and paid for by whichever of its citizens are being productive.

Of course, most "rights" are like this. The right to a trial? Someone has to pay the judge's salary and the mortgage on the courtroom. The right to an attorney? Attorneys don't work for free. The right to petition the government? Someone gets paid to collect and read those petitions. The right to freedom of speech? Someone needs to hire (and pay for) the police to enforce the decisions that support that right. The right to vote? Someone needs to build the ballot boxes and watch the polls.

By your standards, there are no rights.....

[Pardalis]

Does this law include the homeless?

[Francesca R]

i think it has more to do with when you run out of money.

and they Distraint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraint) your stuff, then they cannopt take away your Inet connection.I suspect it requires <whatever company> to make the relevant wires reach every address and not more than that.

[DC]

Does this law include the homeless?

i guess they have the same rights we have in regard to homeless people.

here every citizen has a right for a home, you have no home or no money? you get it from the state.

[Pardalis]

here every citizen has a right for a home, you have no home or no money? you get it from the state.

There are no homeless people in Switzerland?

[DC]

I suspect it requires <whatever company> to make the relevant wires reach every address and not more than that.

sure, but i guess the point is, that when you are jobless and get money from the government you now also get money for a Inet connection.

like it is in Switzerland with TV's

[DC]

There are no homeless people in Switzerland?

yes there are some, but they could get a home or more propably a place in a anti alcohol or drugs clinic.

[Pardalis]

yes there are some, but they could get a home or more propably a place in a anti alcohol or drugs clinic.

You mean a temporary shelter, not a "home". And I doubt an internet connection would make any difference in their lives.

[DC]

You mean a temporary shelter, not a "home". And I doubt an internet connection would make any difference in their lives.

oh sure, i dont think Inet nor a TV are essential for live.
a home is.

and yes you will get into a temporary shelter until you found a payable appartment.

[Safe-Keeper]

yes there are some, but they could get a home or more propably a place in a anti alcohol or drugs clinic.Homeless people aren't just those who don't have anywhere to live. They're also people who don't have viable places to live.

I volunteer at the Bergensian street paper publishing house (http://megafon.no/), which mostly provides a job for drug addicts. Trust me, there's homeless people in Bergen, and trust me, it's not like they can just move into the communal shelters/housing units for the homeless. They're unclean, they're unsafe, and drug trade is so prominent there that it's pretty much a guarantee you'll stay hooked on drugs while you live there.

The government provides cancer treatment to whoever wants it, too. Doesn't mean the thousands of annual West European cancer deaths are voluntary;).

[dudalb]

Of course, most "rights" are like this. The right to a trial? Someone has to pay the judge's salary and the mortgage on the courtroom. The right to an attorney? Attorneys don't work for free. The right to petition the government? Someone gets paid to collect and read those petitions. The right to freedom of speech? Someone needs to hire (and pay for) the police to enforce the decisions that support that right. The right to vote? Someone needs to build the ballot boxes and watch the polls.

By your standards, there are no rights.....


The question becomes where do you draw the line? At what point does a "right" become a major economic burden on the community, costing much more then whatever benefits it bestows.

[DC]

The question becomes where do you draw the line? At what point does a "right" become a major economic burden on the community, costing much more then whatever benefits it bestows.

that decision is made by the community.

[DC]

Homeless people aren't just those who don't have anywhere to live. They're also people who don't have viable places to live.

I volunteer at the Bergensian street paper publishing house (http://megafon.no/), which mostly provides a job for drug addicts. Trust me, there's homeless people in Bergen, and trust me, it's not like they can just move into the communal shelters/housing units for the homeless. They're unclean, they're unsafe, and drug trade is so prominent there that it's pretty much a guarantee you'll stay hooked on drugs while you live there.

The government provides cancer treatment to whoever wants it, too. Doesn't mean the thousands of annual West European cancer deaths are voluntary;).

good post :)

[Pardalis]

So if internet access is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide internet access to the homeless? How is that going to work?

[DC]

So if internet access is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide internet access to the homeless? How is that going to work?

w-lan and a laptop ? :D

[Francesca R]

So if internet access is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide internet access to the homeless? How is that going to work?There is nothing I have seen about this being publicly funded, as I noted above. It could simply be a new service requirement. I have no idea about how cable/phone is allocated in the country

[Megalodon]

So if internet access is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide internet access to the homeless? How is that going to work?

So if bearing arms is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide firepower to the population?

[Ziggurat]

Of course, most "rights" are like this. The right to a trial? Someone has to pay the judge's salary and the mortgage on the courtroom. The right to an attorney? Attorneys don't work for free.

Those two only apply when the government tries to take away other rights of yours, rights which are negative and not positive.

The right to petition the government? Someone gets paid to collect and read those petitions.

You misunderstand that right, at least in the context of the US. Nothing about it obliges the government to pay you any attention, they just can't shut you up.

The right to freedom of speech? Someone needs to hire (and pay for) the police to enforce the decisions that support that right.

And again, you misunderstand this right. It is a purely negative right. It requires NO enforcement, except against other sections of government.

The right to vote? Someone needs to build the ballot boxes and watch the polls.

That's the only purely positive right you've listed.

[Pardalis]

So if bearing arms is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide firepower to the population?

Don't look at me, my country has fortunately no such right. ;)

[DC]

So if bearing arms is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide firepower to the population?

well in the case of switzerland..... well never mind :D

[Safe-Keeper]

good post :)Thanks:).

More on topic, the way I interpret this (read: wild guess:p), the government is going to set up a wireless network that spans the whole country and everyone can log onto. Or is that not technologically feasible given the relatively large size of Finland?

[DC]

Thanks:).

More on topic, the way I interpret this (read: wild guess:p), the government is going to set up a wireless network that spans the whole country and everyone can log onto. Or is that not technologically feasible given the relatively large size of Finland?

can't imagen that.

[Megalodon]

Don't look at me, my country has fortunately no such right. ;)

:D

I am assuming that the "right to Internet" is just a way to prevent operators from denying service to citizens. Such a measure might actually be very needed in a country with a disparity in population density as Finland.

I do of course reserve the right to be wrong about this assumption :)

[Megalodon]

well in the case of switzerland..... well never mind :D

It's a good way of keeping your neutrality and independence... on the top of a bloody mountain, and the populace has socialistic automatic rifles. Also they speak three languages, so that they can confuse your exhausted butt before blowing it away...

[drkitten]

The question becomes where do you draw the line? At what point does a "right" become a major economic burden on the community, costing much more then whatever benefits it bestows.

That's a political question. It seem that the Finnish politicians have made that decision, as is both right and proper.

[Francesca R]

*Cough* Not that I guessed correctly or anything . . . ;)


telecom operators defined as universal service providers must be able to provide every permanent residence and business office with access to a reasonably priced and high-quality connection

[ . . . ]

the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority will determine the telecom operators that will be imposed a universal service obligation. The service providers may decide the technology they wish to use for the service.

http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/tiedote/en.jsp?oid=273978

[DC]

It's a good way of keeping your neutrality and independence... on the top of a bloody mountain, and the populace has socialistic automatic rifles. Also they speak three languages, so that they can confuse your exhausted butt before blowing it away...

yeah langauge confusion is working very well, people dont even know we have 4 languages and not only 3 :D

[Megalodon]

yeah langauge confusion is working very well, people dont even know we have 4 languages and not only 3 :D

Federal Constitution, article 70, "Languages", paragraph 1: The official languages of the Confederation are German, French and Italian. Romansh shall be an official language for communicating with persons of Romansh language.

So you have a 4th secret language you hide from the world... devious bastards.

[DC]

So you have a 4th secret language you hide from the world... devious bastards.

world domination shall be ours.

German, French and Italian. Romansh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romansh_language

[JJM 777]

I suspect it requires <whatever company> to make the relevant wires reach every address and not more than that.

As far as I can tell it is not publicly funding this (...) No mention of price controls (...) I don't think it is a great policy myself.

Situation before this law takes effect: IT companies offer fast and cheap Internet connections in the large urban centers of Southern Finland. Residents of rural areas cannot get a fast Internet connection (if any at all), because the low density of customers in remote areas is not an economical incentive for IT companies to make investments there.

Situation after the law takes effect: every company that sells Internet connections anywhere in the country, must offer at least 1 MB connection everywhere in the country (including the remote rural areas), for essentially the same price. You freely name your price, but you cannot charge more for the same service in rural areas than in urban areas.

This is typical Social Democratic thinking, which is prevalent in Scandinavia. What will happen is that the price of Internet connections in densely populated areas will be slightly overpriced (compared to the actual profitability of the activity), to cover the losses that IT companies make when they offer the obligatory low-priced 1 MB connections to rural areas.

[INRM]

I don't know if it should be considered a right, but it should definitely be a privelage

What do you guys think

[portlandatheist]

Situation before this law takes effect: IT companies offer fast and cheap Internet connections in the large urban centers of Southern Finland. Residents of rural areas cannot get a fast Internet connection (if any at all), because the low density of customers in remote areas is not an economical incentive for IT companies to make investments there.

Situation after the law takes effect: every company that sells Internet connections anywhere in the country, must offer at least 1 MB connection everywhere in the country (including the remote rural areas), for essentially the same price. You freely name your price, but you cannot charge more for the same service in rural areas than in urban areas.

This is typical Social Democratic thinking, which is prevalent in Scandinavia. What will happen is that the price of Internet connections in densely populated areas will be slightly overpriced (compared to the actual profitability of the activity), to cover the losses that IT companies make when they offer the obligatory low-priced 1 MB connections to rural areas.

We have something similar to this in the states with phone service. Phone companies have to provide to rural areas and cannot overcharge. I think there may even be some compensation to the telcos from Uncle Sam funded through the Federal Excise for remote places. That doesn't mean that the phone companies have to build lines to every cabin in the woods, but in some situations they are forced to build lines to areas that are uneconomical for them. Barrow Alaska has no land lines, yet their phone service cost the same as citizens living in Fairbanks. Without these protections, residents would pay enormously expensive phone bills.

Sounds like this "right" is more about rural access than access for the poor.

[psychictv]

Which makes sense if you start to require internet access for government applications such as submitting tax forms, or even voting. And if the government saves some money that way, it makes sense to put that money back into subsidies for the infrastructure.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Headline sounds cool, so I like it :p .

(Completely ignorant in these matters)

[Biscuit]

Good on Finland, birth country of my mother, land of cellphones and vodka...

On a side note we fins also invented drunk dialing. Banned Donald Duck because the dirty perv didn't wear pants.

I think it is very progressive and forward thinking of the finns to define this as a right. No wonder they were voted the best country to live in.

[The Fool]

So if internet access is a "right", then the government will be responsible to provide internet access to the homeless? How is that going to work?

http://www.greenhughes.com/content/using-huawei-e169g-usb-mobile-internet-modem-eee

[Francesca R]

Situation before this law takes effect: [ . . . ]

Situation after the law takes effect: [ . . . ]

What will happen is that the price of Internet connections in densely populated areas will be slightly overpriced (compared to the actual profitability of the activity), to cover the losses that IT companies make when they offer the obligatory low-priced 1 MB connections to rural areas.This is my understanding too and it is why it grates with me.

This is typical Social Democratic thinkingNot sure exactly how you mean this. For myself, I don't have any issue with the Finnish government, or my own, engaging in some redistribution of income if that accords with the society's preference and collective view of what is morally optimal. But compensating rural citizens at the expense of urban ones is not redistribution according to income, so it goes wrong there. Nor is it redressing any imbalance caused by bad fortune. Plus of course, if this was supposed to be about income redistribution, then why force it to be spent on an internet connection?

I tend to view it as a kind of "geographical engineering" whereby Finland most likely wants to show up favourably in an international comparison of broadband take-up or something like that. As such it is largely part of a scarcely necessary arms-race that is better left to private decisions.

I don't know whether I consider it better or worse that the government is mandating the use of private funds instead of tax revenue. Probably worse, since that, in turn, sounds like political expediency (it is much easier to get the electorate to say "Neat!")

But--have fun surfing Finns :)

[JJM 777]

Finland also has concerns about urbanization of the population, younger generations don't enjoy life in rural or northern areas, and move to southern cities. This Internet thingy is just one of the many attempts of the government to keep the standard of living of rural areas acceptable, to avoid mass-migration to cities.

[Safe-Keeper]

Finland also has concerns about urbanization of the population, younger generations don't enjoy life in rural or northern areas, and move to southern cities. This Internet thingy is just one of the many attempts of the government to keep the standard of living of rural areas acceptable, to avoid mass-migration to cities.
Same situation as in Norway, then - our northern areas are being drained of people faster than you can say 'reindeer steak'.

[Francesca R]

Why not redistribute to rural citizens via the tax system though? And why use "internet connection" (rural dwellers get it cheap, urban ones get it expensively) as the transfer currency?

[psychictv]

Why not redistribute to rural citizens via the tax system though? And why use "internet connection" (rural dwellers get it cheap, urban ones get it expensively) as the transfer currency?

I don't think that's the purpose at all. I think it's simply to make sure that the whole country has access to basic communication infrastructure. It's just like previous projects that undertook universal electrification or phone service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Utilities_Service#History