5 ms·

What good is broadband access without some kind of computer? Do Finns have a "right" to computers too? If some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the cou

by jrmurad 17y ago

What good is broadband access without some kind of computer? Do Finns have a "right" to computers too? If some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the country, must he be provided with broadband? By whom? How? Or else what (the provider is forced out of business and won't be providing access to anyone)? (I haven't read the law in question. Perhaps it answers these questions.) Why stop with broadband? Providing it will make Internet-geeks "applaud." What other so-called "rights" can we invent which are incumbent upon the action of others? A right to instruments [culture is good]? Musicians might applaud. A right to sports equipment [fitness is good]? Athletes. Etc. Tell me, what's the difference?

amalcon 17y ago
The use of the term "right" is misleading, but I'll chalk it up to politics as usual. This is really just an infrastructure project dressed up to look like a humanitarian bill. It makes a better comparison to the American interstate highway system, or perhaps to a library system, than to a right to trained legal representation.
Radix 17y ago
Let me play devil's advocate for the difference between this and your other examples. The difference is that internet is infrastructure. It allows other systems to exist, and allows the government to require citizens to interact with it online. Thus it is most like a postal system, rather than instruments, or sports equipment. Having said that, I agree with you, and taking into account my above thoughts, I still think it is out of place as I like the positive-negative rights theory.
enra 17y ago
I think is important it's made a legal right so companies or other agents can't take your connection away easily, like the 'Three Strikes Law' is trying to do in France. Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access. Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every residence. Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change in the future.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else? Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Making everyone pay makes sense when doing nothing ends up costing society more.
  - enra 17y ago
    You have a point there, so the cost is shared by the people who live in rural areas (by paying relative higher rates for less bandwidth) and by the service provider, and therefore by all customers. Also there has been some discussions about how goverment could invest to the infrastructure and take some of the costs. Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.
  - grhino 17y ago
    Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural areas have access to broadband. Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      Serious question, not being facetious: > ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas. I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing? Arrest me? Shoot me?

by jrmurad 17y ago

amalcon 17y ago

The use of the term "right" is misleading, but I'll chalk it up to politics as usual. This is really just an infrastructure project dressed up to look like a humanitarian bill. It makes a better comparison to the American interstate highway system, or perhaps to a library system, than to a right to trained legal representation.

Radix 17y ago

Let me play devil's advocate for the difference between this and your other examples. The difference is that internet is infrastructure. It allows other systems to exist, and allows the government to require citizens to interact with it online. Thus it is most like a postal system, rather than instruments, or sports equipment. Having said that, I agree with you, and taking into account my above thoughts, I still think it is out of place as I like the positive-negative rights theory.

enra 17y ago

I think is important it's made a legal right so companies or other agents can't take your connection away easily, like the 'Three Strikes Law' is trying to do in France. Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access. Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every residence. Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change in the future.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else? Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?
- scott_s 17y ago
  Making everyone pay makes sense when doing nothing ends up costing society more.
- enra 17y ago
  You have a point there, so the cost is shared by the people who live in rural areas (by paying relative higher rates for less bandwidth) and by the service provider, and therefore by all customers. Also there has been some discussions about how goverment could invest to the infrastructure and take some of the costs. Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.
- grhino 17y ago
  Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural areas have access to broadband. Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    Serious question, not being facetious: > ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas. I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing? Arrest me? Shoot me?