9 ms·

Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right (2009)

104 points by dgudkov 14y ago

TomGullen 14y ago
1MB as a legal right seems a little dubious, 100MB as a legal right seems even more dubious. I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB connection offer over a 1MB connection? You can enjoy engage and benefit from the vast majority of important stuff on the Internet with a 250kb connection.
- elithrar 14y ago
  > I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB connection offer over a 1MB connection? It's a marketing/political thing. Most users think that a fatter pipe == faster connection, when of course we know that's not the case. Heck, most of the time when you hit higher port speeds it's a case of the content server on the other end not being able to saturate your 100Mbit pipe anyway! Governments promise these "minimum" speeds or "universal access" as an attempt to appear in touch with technology. For context, the Government here in Australia has started rolling out a national fibre network (National Broadband Network; NBN), with tiered port speeds of 12/25/50/100Mbps. It's going to be a shock to many (and ISP's are going to bear the brunt of the complaints) when people realise their 50Mbit connection isn't going to give them 5-6MB/s throughput from any/every source.
  - GlennS 14y ago
    I've had 50Mb/s for a few years now (UK). It doesn't protect your from network screw-ups, packet-loss or high latency, but it can still be really nice to have. It opens up the possibility of 'What shall we watch tonight? Oh we don't have that yet? I'll just grab it now. Should be done in ten minutes.' Most digital distribution services seem able to handle uploading that fast these days. So the main uses are downloading of videos and computer games. Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      >Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient. // The _availability_ of some level of access though does appear to be worth making universal (within the UK). Access to government services is increasingly being focussed through the WWW. This can have the effect of leaving behind those without a reasonable level of internet access available; making services for that sector of society more difficult to reach (a Trademark search say, or a check of the statute databases or ordering a book from the library or checking up on the MP or ...). If such a disparity of available services can be readily avoided then it seems that it should be.
  - zxoq 14y ago
    Most people don't know that 50 mbit is 6 MB/s anyways. So there should be no issue. The main gain is that higher speeds allows new services (like HDTV over the pipe) and makes content more accessible. I got a 1 gbit home connection and it's great being able to download games off Steam or Origin (which is the only services besides torrents that come close to saturating the line) in 2-3 minutes. My parents have a 100 mbit connection and the only demanding thing they use it for is watching digital TV and sports online, and the reality is a high quality HDTV stream uses up 10-20 mbit, and if you got 3 TVs (or just a TiVo that eats 4 streams on it's own) that mandates a 50 mbit connection at least.
- SamReidHughes 14y ago
  It's 1 Mb not 1 MB.
  - dsrguru 14y ago
    While it bugs me, I understand that from an ISP's point of view, it makes sense to use whatever plausible-ish unit will let you post the highest number, even if that unit is way less practical for thinking in (any download large enough to be affected by connection speed is going to be thought of by the person downloading in terms of bytes, not bits). Also, if an ISP doesn't do that, everyone else will, and they'll be the loser in a prisoner's dilemma. However, what really bugs me is when third parties (e.g. the Finish government) perpetuate the inferior standard, which arose as a marketing ploy, for no apparent reason other than maybe ignorance. It's bad enough that we still don't really use the metric system outside of science in the United States, and it's cost us a fair amount of money in incorrect conversions. However, with MBps and Mbps, most laypeople and possibly some Finish government officials don't even realize that there are two systems, one of which is almost an order of magnitude larger.
    - andreasvc 14y ago
      Measuring transmission speeds in bits is a well-established tradition, e.g., modem speeds have always been reported in "baud" (bits per second). On the contrary, it could be claimed that bytes are an arbitrary unit (despite being a ubiquitous convention), whereas a bit is the fundamental unit of information. That said, it would be more convenient if all speeds were reported in megabytes, and aside from throughput, latency and packet loss should arguably be advertised as well.
- rmc 14y ago
  You can enjoy engage and benefit from the vast majority of important stuff on the Internet with a 250kb connection. No not really. Streaming videos down, or streaming videos up (i.e. video chat) is harder at low speeds like that. With 250kb/sec you can consume textual content easier.
xtiy 14y ago
The voice of the people will be heard.
darksaga 14y ago
Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in roughly the same sq mile area. Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.
- hartror 14y ago
  Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper . . .
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.
    - jarospisak 14y ago
      He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).
      - waterlesscloud 14y ago
        No. If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head. But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
        sirclueless 14y ago
        I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.
crazy1van 14y ago
Calling access to a consumer good a "right" really cheapens the concept. The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- a_bonobo 14y ago
  Have you read the article? >the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second." That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people. What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)
  - crazy1van 14y ago
    >Have you read the article? >>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second." >That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people. That's why I said access to a consumer good and nothing about who pays. That said, as far as I can tell, there isn't a western democracy that forbids their people from buying internet access. So if this doesn't have anything to do with assisting people to pay for it and they aren't banned from buying it themselves, what does it do? In reality this does have to do with assisting them to pay for it, because mandating construction of broadband connections is just a roundabout way of helping pay for it. >What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? >From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water) This is exactly what I mean. You are comparing getting internet access to getting food and water. If you don't have food and water, you die. If you don't have internet access, then yes you don't have access to the best, most modern way to communicate. However, in a nation with free speech you have access to many other ways to express yourself. I'm sure resourceful people will find ways to exercise that right without mandating some telco run fiber to within 2km of their house.
vegardx 14y ago
I think most people read too much into the speeds. What they are acutally saying is that you now have a legal right to get a decent-ish connection at any place in Finland. And this should be a right in any modern country, as so many things revolve around having access to the Internet. Example: In Norway we do our tax returns, apply for school, read up on information about your properties, etc. You basically have to have access to Internet.
glaze 14y ago
This cannot be implemented without violating property rights, so it's morally wrong. The state should protect people's rights, not take them away.
- AlisdairO 14y ago
  Maybe the Finns have a different idea of what makes a good society than you?
  - glaze 14y ago
    As a Finn, I don't like the idea that other people can vote to take away some individual's rights, in this case, ISP's.
    - Cobrian 14y ago
      As a fellow Finn, I don't consider an ISP to be a person, but rather a service provider, and as such I'm fine with the concept of (some of them) being forced to have obligations rather than just the right to take our money.
      - glaze 14y ago
        Providing sub-1M connection doesn't put anyone's life into danger, like selling poisoned food etc., so there's no reason to regulate it.
        AlisdairO 14y ago
        Most societies regulate an enormous number of things that aren't life threatening, in the hope of providing a better life for their citizens.
        glaze 14y ago
        Yeah, better life for some group of people in exchange for worse life for others.
pimeys 14y ago
I still remember the fiasco of spending lots of tax money to build a DVB television network. They were talking a lot of having a "callback channel" in those set-top boxes and lots of interaction in TV programs. Well, we had expensive television network while Sweden spent the same money for better Internet connections.
Juha 14y ago
I think defining broadband access like this allows them to move certain legally required things to the internet age. I believe there are a lot of small laws in Finland that say what the radio channel, newspaper or Tv channel should provide. For example we actually have a law that during icehockey World Championships our own matches should be broadcasted for free. If enough people legally have access to a broadband internet, its easier to make laws to offering certain services through the internet (certain information delivery, services like taxes and maybe voting in the future).
pooriaazimi 14y ago
Meanwhile, in my country, regular people can't have anything better than 128kb (it's the law).
- troels 14y ago
  what? where is that?
  - tommi 14y ago
    Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran
tigerweeds 14y ago
fyi, article is 3 years old
Ras_ 14y ago
Original article is three years old. Here's two more on the subject, both less than month old. The first one also provides info about the scope of the plan and its implementation (like "Private Roads Act, Highways Act and Rail Tracks Act will be adjusted, so that cables can be placed within the infrastructure in the most economic manner possible overall"). "The Government is to keep the hundred megabit objective to be achieved by 2015, which was set during the election period. By 2015, high-speed 100 Mbit/s broadband connections will be available at no more than two kilometres from all permanent places of residence." http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122 http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122 In this news item, the Finnish Minister of Communications suggests that 10Mb would become the new minimum standard before end of election term in 2015. http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+capacity+could+be+raised+to+10+Mbit+nationwide/1329103903453 http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+...

104 points by dgudkov 14y ago

1MB as a legal right seems a little dubious, 100MB as a legal right seems even more dubious. I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB connection offer over a 1MB connection? You can enjoy engage and benefit from the vast majority of important stuff on the Internet with a 250kb connection.

elithrar 14y ago
> I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB connection offer over a 1MB connection? It's a marketing/political thing. Most users think that a fatter pipe == faster connection, when of course we know that's not the case. Heck, most of the time when you hit higher port speeds it's a case of the content server on the other end not being able to saturate your 100Mbit pipe anyway! Governments promise these "minimum" speeds or "universal access" as an attempt to appear in touch with technology. For context, the Government here in Australia has started rolling out a national fibre network (National Broadband Network; NBN), with tiered port speeds of 12/25/50/100Mbps. It's going to be a shock to many (and ISP's are going to bear the brunt of the complaints) when people realise their 50Mbit connection isn't going to give them 5-6MB/s throughput from any/every source.
- GlennS 14y ago
  I've had 50Mb/s for a few years now (UK). It doesn't protect your from network screw-ups, packet-loss or high latency, but it can still be really nice to have. It opens up the possibility of 'What shall we watch tonight? Oh we don't have that yet? I'll just grab it now. Should be done in ten minutes.' Most digital distribution services seem able to handle uploading that fast these days. So the main uses are downloading of videos and computer games. Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient. // The _availability_ of some level of access though does appear to be worth making universal (within the UK). Access to government services is increasingly being focussed through the WWW. This can have the effect of leaving behind those without a reasonable level of internet access available; making services for that sector of society more difficult to reach (a Trademark search say, or a check of the statute databases or ordering a book from the library or checking up on the MP or ...). If such a disparity of available services can be readily avoided then it seems that it should be.
- zxoq 14y ago
  Most people don't know that 50 mbit is 6 MB/s anyways. So there should be no issue. The main gain is that higher speeds allows new services (like HDTV over the pipe) and makes content more accessible. I got a 1 gbit home connection and it's great being able to download games off Steam or Origin (which is the only services besides torrents that come close to saturating the line) in 2-3 minutes. My parents have a 100 mbit connection and the only demanding thing they use it for is watching digital TV and sports online, and the reality is a high quality HDTV stream uses up 10-20 mbit, and if you got 3 TVs (or just a TiVo that eats 4 streams on it's own) that mandates a 50 mbit connection at least.
SamReidHughes 14y ago
It's 1 Mb not 1 MB.
- dsrguru 14y ago
  While it bugs me, I understand that from an ISP's point of view, it makes sense to use whatever plausible-ish unit will let you post the highest number, even if that unit is way less practical for thinking in (any download large enough to be affected by connection speed is going to be thought of by the person downloading in terms of bytes, not bits). Also, if an ISP doesn't do that, everyone else will, and they'll be the loser in a prisoner's dilemma. However, what really bugs me is when third parties (e.g. the Finish government) perpetuate the inferior standard, which arose as a marketing ploy, for no apparent reason other than maybe ignorance. It's bad enough that we still don't really use the metric system outside of science in the United States, and it's cost us a fair amount of money in incorrect conversions. However, with MBps and Mbps, most laypeople and possibly some Finish government officials don't even realize that there are two systems, one of which is almost an order of magnitude larger.
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    Measuring transmission speeds in bits is a well-established tradition, e.g., modem speeds have always been reported in "baud" (bits per second). On the contrary, it could be claimed that bytes are an arbitrary unit (despite being a ubiquitous convention), whereas a bit is the fundamental unit of information. That said, it would be more convenient if all speeds were reported in megabytes, and aside from throughput, latency and packet loss should arguably be advertised as well.
rmc 14y ago
You can enjoy engage and benefit from the vast majority of important stuff on the Internet with a 250kb connection. No not really. Streaming videos down, or streaming videos up (i.e. video chat) is harder at low speeds like that. With 250kb/sec you can consume textual content easier.

xtiy 14y ago

The voice of the people will be heard.

darksaga 14y ago

Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in roughly the same sq mile area. Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.

hartror 14y ago
Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper . . .
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.
  - jarospisak 14y ago
    He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      No. If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head. But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
      - sirclueless 14y ago
        I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.

crazy1van 14y ago

Calling access to a consumer good a "right" really cheapens the concept. The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
a_bonobo 14y ago
Have you read the article? >the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second." That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people. What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)
- crazy1van 14y ago
  >Have you read the article? >>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second." >That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people. That's why I said access to a consumer good and nothing about who pays. That said, as far as I can tell, there isn't a western democracy that forbids their people from buying internet access. So if this doesn't have anything to do with assisting people to pay for it and they aren't banned from buying it themselves, what does it do? In reality this does have to do with assisting them to pay for it, because mandating construction of broadband connections is just a roundabout way of helping pay for it. >What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? >From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water) This is exactly what I mean. You are comparing getting internet access to getting food and water. If you don't have food and water, you die. If you don't have internet access, then yes you don't have access to the best, most modern way to communicate. However, in a nation with free speech you have access to many other ways to express yourself. I'm sure resourceful people will find ways to exercise that right without mandating some telco run fiber to within 2km of their house.

vegardx 14y ago

I think most people read too much into the speeds. What they are acutally saying is that you now have a legal right to get a decent-ish connection at any place in Finland. And this should be a right in any modern country, as so many things revolve around having access to the Internet. Example: In Norway we do our tax returns, apply for school, read up on information about your properties, etc. You basically have to have access to Internet.

glaze 14y ago

This cannot be implemented without violating property rights, so it's morally wrong. The state should protect people's rights, not take them away.

AlisdairO 14y ago
Maybe the Finns have a different idea of what makes a good society than you?
- glaze 14y ago
  As a Finn, I don't like the idea that other people can vote to take away some individual's rights, in this case, ISP's.
  - Cobrian 14y ago
    As a fellow Finn, I don't consider an ISP to be a person, but rather a service provider, and as such I'm fine with the concept of (some of them) being forced to have obligations rather than just the right to take our money.
    - glaze 14y ago
      Providing sub-1M connection doesn't put anyone's life into danger, like selling poisoned food etc., so there's no reason to regulate it.
      - AlisdairO 14y ago
        Most societies regulate an enormous number of things that aren't life threatening, in the hope of providing a better life for their citizens.
        glaze 14y ago
        Yeah, better life for some group of people in exchange for worse life for others.

pimeys 14y ago

I still remember the fiasco of spending lots of tax money to build a DVB television network. They were talking a lot of having a "callback channel" in those set-top boxes and lots of interaction in TV programs. Well, we had expensive television network while Sweden spent the same money for better Internet connections.

Juha 14y ago

I think defining broadband access like this allows them to move certain legally required things to the internet age. I believe there are a lot of small laws in Finland that say what the radio channel, newspaper or Tv channel should provide. For example we actually have a law that during icehockey World Championships our own matches should be broadcasted for free. If enough people legally have access to a broadband internet, its easier to make laws to offering certain services through the internet (certain information delivery, services like taxes and maybe voting in the future).

pooriaazimi 14y ago

Meanwhile, in my country, regular people can't have anything better than 128kb (it's the law).

troels 14y ago
what? where is that?
- tommi 14y ago
  Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran

tigerweeds 14y ago

fyi, article is 3 years old

Ras_ 14y ago

Original article is three years old. Here's two more on the subject, both less than month old. The first one also provides info about the scope of the plan and its implementation (like "Private Roads Act, Highways Act and Rail Tracks Act will be adjusted, so that cables can be placed within the infrastructure in the most economic manner possible overall"). "The Government is to keep the hundred megabit objective to be achieved by 2015, which was set during the election period. By 2015, high-speed 100 Mbit/s broadband connections will be available at no more than two kilometres from all permanent places of residence." http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122 http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122 In this news item, the Finnish Minister of Communications suggests that 10Mb would become the new minimum standard before end of election term in 2015. http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+capacity+could+be+raised+to+10+Mbit+nationwide/1329103903453 http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+...