Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right
Finland's Ministry of Transport and Communications has made 1-megabit broadband Web access a legal right, YLE, the country's national broadcasting company, reported on Wednesday.
According to the report, every person in Finland (a little over 5 million people, according to a 2009 estimate) will have the right of access to a 1Mb broadband connection starting in July. And they may ultimately gain the right to a 100Mb broadband connection.
Just more than a year ago, Finland said it would make a 100Mb broadband connection a legal right by the end of 2015. Wednesday's announcement is considered an intermediate step.
France, one of a few countries that has made Internet access a human right, did so earlier this year. France's Constitutional Council ruled that Internet access is a basic human right. That said, it stopped short of making "broadband access" a legal right. Finland says that it's the first country to make broadband access a legal right.
But Finland's definition of "access" to broadband is a little fuzzy. According to the Helsinki Times when it reported the 100Mb target last year, 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." It did say, though, that "about 2,000 (households) in far-flung corners of the country" wouldn't be included. Ostensibly, Finland plans to keep that same distribution when its 1Mb broadband access is implemented.
Finland has long been a tech-industry leader that has done a fine job investing in technology, more than many of its European counterparts. It's also home to Nokia, among other tech firms.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
That's pretty nice. I think we need to get 5 megs down everyone in the US
What a brave new world it is when some Ministry of Authority can just magically invent "rights" that entail forcing others to provide you with something you don't want to pay for.
As Jefferson wrote, "A government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take everything you have." But I guess that doesn't matter as long as you're on the "entitled" side grabbing whatever loot you can.
Considerable concern in this case is that operators see commercial incentives to downgrade current offerings on sparsely populated areas. They are interested in stopping their support for copper telephone cables on deep countryside, for instance - after all, a person without a mobile phone has been an extreme rarity for a decade or so here. Removing the copper option without an replacement would easily lead to drastically reduced quality of service on data services, though.
Finland has almost spotless GSM coverage even on least populated areas, but 3G or HSPA just isn't there, at least yet. What this law enforces is that dominant players have to offer option of specific minimum level of service to *all* customers. Means (fiber, copper, various wireless technologies) are not specified in the law.
The law might also imply that those living on social security would get financial support for their internet connection, but that's not really a major point, just an interpretational side effect of the primary goal.
No. These rights just make one's life better, as does the right to internet access.
If you live in a rural area that has no access to the internet the type of job you'd be looking for isn't posted on the internet. I doubt there are many "Farm Laborer Needed" jobs posted on the internet compared to a local paper.
You people that think the government can solve all your problems are dangerous. Your arguments pit government against corporations and conclude that government is far less evil. However between the two, which I think is a false dichotomy in the first place, the government is the only one that can take your money and lock you in jail if you don't comply. Citizens shouldn't trust their government and government should fear their citizens.
For each of us our sovereignty ends at our noses and we should surrender as little of that sovereignty as possible.
But beyond that, it's still impressive that they can get the infrastructure set up to this level to the majority of the population.
Finland wants it's citizens to have "access' to the internet. I presume from the realization that more and more government and business transactions are occuring over the intranet and those with out access would not be able to utilize these services.
The quote 'the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection"' tells me that they are not piping high speed internet into every home. But making public access to it for it's citizens, probably at community centers such as libraries and public offices.
You've gotta remember that, just because access to it is a right, doesn't mean it's forced upon you. It's similar to having access to, say, cable tv, a phone-line, or a cellphone network near you. It's there, if you need it, but you don't have to have it.
Don't get me wrong, we're a very 'techy' family, my 6 and 9 year olds already have their own email addresses, and use them with parental monitoring. But just as a parent, what are the future implications of laws like this being passed?
What's the best and fastest way to move 10 Terebytes of Data overnight?
Fed-Ex... (And a few USB Hard Drives)
In a purely technical sense, Fed-Ex probably has the fastest potential bandwidth, as long as you don't mind the latency (overnite)
;)
As I stated above, or at least tried to imply, this is law is really a market control mechanism creating responsibilities for specifically defined telecom operators (that are going to be defined later). Only in very rare cases at its current form it's enforcing these operators to build new expensive infrastructure. Mostly it just tries to enforce the current service level in those places where it's endangered in the ways I described, as Internet connectivity becomes more and more essential to peoples' lives.
Also, Finnish government doesn't have much of other than regulatory control over the telecom market in this country. It has strategic investments to some of the largest operators, but that's pretty much it. This law is not going to benefit these companies, at least. Companies that benefit, or rather get easy without some extra burden are the small ones operating in highly competed regions, like the capital area.
To rephrase the content again, this has nothing to do with basic human rights. It doesn't take away your right to control how your children use the Net, not even close. It primarily gives the consumers assurance that the government sees good connectivity as essential to national success, and enforces big players with strong profits to not leave individual unlucky consumers in the dark in their hunt for minor financial gains.
What I consider a bit ambitious is the goal of 100Mbps broadband goal for everybody in six years - yes, I've had that for over a decade first on the university campus and now on the private market (truly at those speeds) for 20 euros a month, but I'm very privileged, even when comparing with many people on the largest population centers. I hope the plan goes well, and doesn't put excess strain either on operators or the consumers' expectations...
I live in Ohio, big state with three major metropolitan areas at the northern edge, center and southern edge of the state. Almost everything on the eastern side of the state in rural areas and it covers a lot of area. the western side of the state has a couple of decent side cities to break up the rural areas. There is also a lot of rural area in the central stretch of the state separating the three metropolitan areas.
What I perceive this law to be eliminating the service providers ability to come into an area and have a lock on that regions coverage and then only offer service in select areas within that region. We have the same thing here in the states when "national" providers demand equal access to areas as local providers and then pick and choose the best cities or best neighborhoods to offer their service.
In my above example of my state, and carrier that demands equal access to a county or region within the state should be required to provide services to every person that wants to pay for access within the geographical area even if it is a low profit or even a loss that requires years to recoup to extend their service past the city limits sign.
http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/individual%20rights/
One of the great advantages of the internet, though, is I get to read the most brain-dead, ignorant comments from people I would never meet or spend more than 3 seconds listening to if I happened to be within ear-shot of them....spouting stupid, Founding Father faux quotes that have no bearing on the present, urbanized world.
Are you people even aware how blatantly stupid you sound or actually are...? Are you?
Do you have any clue how many billions of dollars were and are spent on rural electrification to get power to farmers in the 1930's, so we don't have pitiful, hopeless rural slums?
Do you know how many trillions, probably, have been spent on that street outside your house or freeways near you, so you can actually get to your important therapy sessions without getting stuck in the mud? Or those government-funded sewage systems or water systems or trash trucks or fire services or police protection or public education and a million other services that you're completely clueless of...?
Do you know about the small charge on your landline bill (I'm assuming you haven't discovered newfangled cell phones yet) to pay for phone lines out to rural America, so everyone can have cheap phone service?
Adding the idea of low-cost internet service is only the next logical step for modern, enlightened societies (i.e., like basic healthcare). Unfortunately, though, "enlightenment" is not a right yet, we do still have the freedom to be a knuckle-dragger. Jeez.
Wake-up out of your stupor, people. Read. Listen (but, not Rush, not Beck). Watch (but not Fox News). Think. Think some more. Ask a dumb question. Be humble. Ask another dumb question. Don't be insecure. Ask another dumb question. Think some more. Don't fear the unknown. Learn. Raise your IQ half a point. Repeat.
Regarding writing checks: I think I saw that last time around '88 here in Finland. Oh, some tourists might have done it after that. And practically everybody (I know) under 70 use internet banking for their regular chores. I think first time I used "electric banking" from home was around '90. Doesn't necessarily say that things would be so magically better than elsewhere, but shows that coordinated efforts of things like digitalisation of banking system and limiting adverse effects of anticompetitive practices can speed up adoption of processes that leave more time for more relevant things in life than if the advance would have been driven plainly by financial interests of individual companies. The effort described in the article is certainly towards broadly similar direction.
Internet Is Not Another School Tool ?
Where as in Melbourne Australia, there are still large numbers of houses that can only use dial up or mobile wireless (more than 20 times more expensive and unreliable connectivity). Australia?s NBN is a grand idea but for many households it is 8-10 years away. You might ask where do they still have to use dial up in Melbourne metro? Well try the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minster for Australia.
Come see what we're up to: www.warbc.net
Ophir Ronen
WA-RBC
- by jk00000 October 15, 2009 12:42 AM PDT
- You still have to pay for the connection of course. This is just a right to be ABLE to get the connection, it will not be free.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (50 Comments)