Free internet!!!

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/15/finland.internet.rights/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


Fast Internet access becomes a legal right in Finland

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Providers will need to supply connection speeds of at least 1 megabit per second
But Finland is aiming for speeds that are 100 times faster
95 percent of Finnish population have some sort of Internet access
The law is designed to bring the Web to rural areas
updated 4 hours, 37 minutes ago
Next Article in Technology »


By Saeed Ahmed
CNN

(CNN) -- Finland has become the first country in the world to declare broadband Internet access a legal right.


The move by Finland is aimed at bringing Web access to rural areas, where access has been limited.

Starting in July, telecommunication companies in the northern European nation will be required to provide all 5.2 million citizens with Internet connection that runs at speeds of at least 1 megabit per second.

The one-megabit mandate, however, is simply an intermediary step, said Laura Vilkkonen, the legislative counselor for the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

The country is aiming for speeds that are 100 times faster -- 100 megabit per second -- for all by 2015.

"We think it's something you cannot live without in modern society. Like banking services or water or electricity, you need Internet connection," Vilkkonen said.

Finland is one of the most wired in the world; about 95 percent of the population have some sort of Internet access, she said. But the law is designed to bring the Web to rural areas, where geographic challenges have limited access until now.

"Universal service is every citizen's subjective right," Vilkkonen said.

Should fast Internet access be everyone's legal right?

It is a view shared by the United Nations, which is making a big push to deem Internet access a human right.

In June, France's highest court declared such access a human right. But Finland goes a step further by legally mandating speed.

On the other hand, the United States is the only industrialized nation without a national policy to promote high-speed broadband, according to a study released in August by the Communications Workers of America, the country's largest media union.

Forty-six percent of rural households do not subscribe to broadband, and usage varies based on income, the study found.

In February, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is expected to submit a national plan to Congress. The FCC says that expanding service will require subsidies and investment of as much as $350 billion -- much higher than the $7.2 billion President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package has set aside for the task.

Is access to the internet a basic human right? What about access to information?

Not saying I agree with Finland, nor do I want the government to pay for more stuff, but what about broadcast TV? Sure, you have to buy a TV, but the signal is free? Why can't I pay for a computer and get a free internet signal?

[StoopTroup]

Finland will take over the World soon.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Al Gore invented the damn thing so all these other countries should be paying royalties to him and in turn he could provide free internet fer us. he's a all fer the masses kind of guy.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

FREE PORN IN FINLAND!

YAAAAAAAY!

[My Opinion Matters]

Clearly, access to 4chan, Twitter, and TMZ.com are all basic human rights. Access to doctors, medicine, and hospitals is not.

[Chuck Bao]

That article is not entirely accurate. The 1997 Thai constitution included access to internet as a basic human right. It did not provide for free internet services, like Finland, but the implied language was that schools and government offices would allow for everyone to access internet when needed.

I totally agree. Although the internet may be a source of disinformation as much as information, people should be given the right to read and decide for themselves.

This is probably increasingly the case with print media standards falling and failing. There are more TV channel options and it seems the standards on quality news reporting and analysis have also deteriorated. I personally know a number of high quality journalists who cannot earn a decent wage because nobody wants to pay for it anymore.

In Thailand's case, how can democracy ever work if the electorate does not have access to needed information?

Scratch that. The 2006 military takeover of an elected government was the latest in a long list of Thailand's failed experiments with democracy. When the coup planners re-wrote the constitution yet again, they left out the part about internet being a basic human right. Why am I not surprised?

Censoring the internet for unfavorable political comments is the same thing. It is a black and white issue for me.

[King Crimson]

I'd point out that according to the 1934 Communications Act, the electro-magnetic spectrum (that feature of the world that allows broadcast and such) was declared a natural and shared resource that was property of the American people and not the government. Access is a fundamental right.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Access is a fundamental right.

True and not true. Two sides to the story.

Off-air is public domain within certain non-governmental ranges only on issuance of license. 1934 addresses off-air and sets the available bands. Without the Telecommunications Act of 1996, access to closed systems using frequencies within the public domain ranges would be wholly up to the provider and owner of said system. Even still, access is provided at reduced rate as per the act as a means for entry-level competition to provide services on existing systems (read: Long Distance Wars). That hardware is still the property of the operating system, even through the forced intermodality mandated by 1996.

So yes, access is a right, which is why all those electrical devices have the FCC interference warning sticker on 'em. Usage is not. Nor is access to closed systems, which essentially defines what the internet is.

[King Crimson]

96 Act is a different story--though the definition is one based on the nature of the technology in an economic framework....not a "philosophical continuation" of an existing "public interest" logic from the 34 Act which wasn't a "done deal" during the construction of the 96 Act. just making a point about the history of communications legislation but your distinction between access and usage is a point well made and taken.

though, it can also be argued that "public interest, convenience, or necessity" (the 34 Act) was always framed to function as legal language to make the so-called trustee model an attractive alternative to the growing RCA's of the world....such that technological advance ("fitness to serve") and ownership of more powerful equipment vis a vis dividing up the spectrum by the FCC (which was largely composed of industry cronies) foreclosed the possibility of local or individual broadcast.

the other difference is that the 34 Act is based on the notion of scarcity vis a vis the electro-magnetic spectrum. It's argued persuasively (i guess) in 96 that scarcity is no longer an issue given the availability of bandwidth and potential markets (including the marketplace of ideas). though, the latter by itself, doesn't make a complete case against access.

[Chuck Bao]

You guys are making a muddle of this, although I agree that the distinctions on bandwidth and ownership of the airwaves and broadcast rights are very, very important and the fact that it is not only national ownership but a global standard that will emerge and globalization is really a factor in forcing long-standing national perceptions to change.

With that being said, let's keep the internet open and free (within reason) for all people of the world.

Access to the internet and open and free discussion is a human right or not?

Alright, back to the airwaves and broadcasts rights over the airwaves and frequencies and new technologies that will change our world.

Thank you very much for everyone posting in this thread. Spek.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

I guess it would seem that the TV debate would only compare with WiFi and any other wireless type data service as compared to wired stuff where people actually own the infrastructure.

But then what about cell phones? I think if certain over-the-air channels are free, then they all should be free.

Apparently, my question is, where do we draw the line?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It matters tremendously, Chuck. In one of a couple of different ways.

In the United States, as mentioned, even with the mandated lease access and system intermodality of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, closed systems and access to the content/broadcast/function within is an issue of a relationship with the provider of said content. AKA, your cable bill. You pay X amount of dollars for Y type content and access to our private, closed network and with such, you can access outside, unsecured systems because our system was built to connect and talk to others because of that forced intermodality of 1996. Paying for the usage, maintenance, and connectivity of that system. Hence the term "service provider".

The interconnectivity of all these closed systems across the world is what gives us "the internet". Closed systems, which as per 1996, are still the private property of said system with access to these closed systems maintained by the owner of said system under applicable standard. Even "wi-fi" systems are simply these same closed systems on a different backbone with access regulated by the owner of the system/lessee of the frequency range.

So is internet access a right? Do your neighbors have the right to walk into your house anytime they want, pick out a good book of yours and promptly crap in your toilet? Can strangers walk in from the street, head straight to your fridge and grab a cold beer? With your permission, yes. Under an agreement, yes.