6 ms·

Broadband Internet to Become Legal Right in Finland in 2010

8 points by dkasper 17y ago

te_platt 17y ago
It looks like we need some new words to differentiate what different people mean by a right. Something for an independent right and something different for an dependent right. Dependent meaning it relies on the effort of someone else.
electromagnetic 17y ago
This is a great idea, ensuring everyone has fair and unrestricted access to at least a 1Mb connection (on the download side) is a great idea. Not only will it force companies to improve infrastructure, but it will force down prices on higher speed, higher limit connections (people are going to be asking, why should I pay $30 for your 10Mb connection with 60Gb limit, when I pay $0 for a 1Mb unlimited connection). I wish this would come into play in Canada, especially for people in rural areas. People should have access to the internet, just like they have access to telephones, without prejudice to where they live.
- docmach 17y ago
  How is forcing companies to give services away for free a good idea? What if most people decide that 1Mb is good enough and don't pay for anything? It seems like this is bad for the people who are willing to pay. Where people live has a huge impact on the cost of providing internet service to them, so why shouldn't it matter where they live?
  - smhinsey 17y ago
    This doesn't provide anything for free, it sets a floor on the minimum speed an ISP can offer.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Not only will it force companies to improve infrastructure What it does is require some people to subsidize other people's connections. The details determine which people fall into which group and the excuse used to collect the money. > people are going to be asking, why should I pay $30 for your 10Mb connection with 60Gb limit, when I pay $0 for a 1Mb unlimited connection Yup. That means that the subsidy money won't come from other bandwidth purchasers. However, it will come from somewhere, or rather someones.
cromulent 17y ago
Another new law in Finland is that all new dwellings must have a bathroom that is suitably sized for the disabled (wheelchair friendly). As seriously disabled people are reimbursed for alterations to their home (eg ramps, kitchen and bathroom alterations, lifts, etc) there is a massive expense to the country. As the population is aging, they have decided to make sure that all new dwellings are prepared for these modifications. Not such a big deal for a large house, but certainly so for a tiny apartment (which are common). The overall aim is that all inhabitants should have the services they need, regardless of their financial or social status. Broadband is just one of those things. Mind you, I can only get 256kbps at the summer cottage due to the distance from the exchange.
stse 17y ago
Seems natural as the Internet will become the primary communications network, replacing both the telephone and television networks.
chasingsparks 17y ago
It's tough to comment on an article whose entire content is composed of 81 words. What exactly do they mean by "right"? If you don't want to pay for it, do you get it because it is a "right"? Did anyone find an expounded (hopefully primary) source?

8 points by dkasper 17y ago

It looks like we need some new words to differentiate what different people mean by a right. Something for an independent right and something different for an dependent right. Dependent meaning it relies on the effort of someone else.

electromagnetic 17y ago

This is a great idea, ensuring everyone has fair and unrestricted access to at least a 1Mb connection (on the download side) is a great idea. Not only will it force companies to improve infrastructure, but it will force down prices on higher speed, higher limit connections (people are going to be asking, why should I pay $30 for your 10Mb connection with 60Gb limit, when I pay $0 for a 1Mb unlimited connection). I wish this would come into play in Canada, especially for people in rural areas. People should have access to the internet, just like they have access to telephones, without prejudice to where they live.

docmach 17y ago
How is forcing companies to give services away for free a good idea? What if most people decide that 1Mb is good enough and don't pay for anything? It seems like this is bad for the people who are willing to pay. Where people live has a huge impact on the cost of providing internet service to them, so why shouldn't it matter where they live?
- smhinsey 17y ago
  This doesn't provide anything for free, it sets a floor on the minimum speed an ISP can offer.
anamax 17y ago
> Not only will it force companies to improve infrastructure What it does is require some people to subsidize other people's connections. The details determine which people fall into which group and the excuse used to collect the money. > people are going to be asking, why should I pay $30 for your 10Mb connection with 60Gb limit, when I pay $0 for a 1Mb unlimited connection Yup. That means that the subsidy money won't come from other bandwidth purchasers. However, it will come from somewhere, or rather someones.

cromulent 17y ago

Another new law in Finland is that all new dwellings must have a bathroom that is suitably sized for the disabled (wheelchair friendly). As seriously disabled people are reimbursed for alterations to their home (eg ramps, kitchen and bathroom alterations, lifts, etc) there is a massive expense to the country. As the population is aging, they have decided to make sure that all new dwellings are prepared for these modifications. Not such a big deal for a large house, but certainly so for a tiny apartment (which are common). The overall aim is that all inhabitants should have the services they need, regardless of their financial or social status. Broadband is just one of those things. Mind you, I can only get 256kbps at the summer cottage due to the distance from the exchange.

stse 17y ago

Seems natural as the Internet will become the primary communications network, replacing both the telephone and television networks.

chasingsparks 17y ago

It's tough to comment on an article whose entire content is composed of 81 words. What exactly do they mean by "right"? If you don't want to pay for it, do you get it because it is a "right"? Did anyone find an expounded (hopefully primary) source?