5 ms·

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 i

by 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?
    - scott_s 17y ago
      Tax you.
      - lionhearted 17y ago
        > Tax you. The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" "Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?
        LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
        "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.
        lionhearted 17y ago
        > "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work. You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced. But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?

by enra 17y ago

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?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Tax you.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      > Tax you. The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" "Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?
      - LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
        "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.
        lionhearted 17y ago
        > "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work. You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced. But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?