I love broadband and all, but making it a legal right is the kind of silly we rightfully ridicule Europe for. Stupid.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Mall Cops: Mall Of America Series Coming To TLC
- 2009 WWE Survivor Series Results
- Video: Jennifer Lopez Falls On Stage At 2009 American Music Awards
- Dashawn Vasconcellos: NYPD Shot Teen 11 Times
- Disney Adapting High School Musical For China
- Katie Price Quits I’m A Celebrity
- Patrizia D’Addario Claims Silvio Berlusconi Had Feet Massaged By Lesbians In Orgy
- Eric Wood Leg Break Video
- Bulls Run Wild On Set Of Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz Movie
- Will Smith Dead Rumor Circulates
Live News
Unfortunately, if one clicks through to the original article, there really isn’t any more information than what you’ve posted.
Which is a shame, because what is meant by “right” here, could mean that I think they have this right.
Under our constitution, I have a “right” to own a gun. That doesn’t mean I’m entitled to one for free.
I have a “right” to read any book I choose. That doesn’t mean I’m entitled to receive said book for free.
Given the nature of the world today and the ever-increasing dependence on technology and the internet for commerce and access to all forms of information, making sure people of all classes have access to the net is rather like guaranteeing public education.
If, as we currently do, have certain areas that commercial providers have decided they can’t make a high enough profit off of, or just contains too many people of the wrong class, well then the residents of those areas just don’t get access to the info superhighway. Thus they are at a permanent disadvantage in terms of “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps”, since they can’t get access to the knowledge that’s needed for it.
I’m in favor of things that reduce the redlining and ghettoization we’ve done in the US for most of our history, whether it’s with respect to access to housing, to education, or to technology.
Not exactly sure why you call it stupid. We’ve spent money to ensure roads and telephone access to the highest possible percentage of Americans that want it. Maybe silly or different but stupid seems like a weird word for this.
Those things are vital, broadband? In a couple decades.
The Finnish economy is significantly more wired than ours is right now, and Rheinhard’s point is quite valid. It could be something as simple as striking down local regs or the equivalent of HOA rules that ban or hinder its installation, i.e. not welfare-width.
What Bruce said. From their perspective it really is something that’s critical to their financial future. Maybe it’s a little silly to declare it a right, but it’s also forward-thinking in the sense that they want to be a model nation in terms of technology.
Meanwhile, America languishes in terms of broad-band access compared to other countries. And our health care is a mess.
USA! USA! USA!
Rheinhard makes a quite valid point about the semantics of what a right is. The difference between a right to bear arms and a right to be provided with something. When does the right of one individual become the obligation of another?
I just got back from that part of the world, and it’s incredible how wired they are. Estonia (right across the sea from Finland) is one of the most wired countries in the world, and it’s something they take pride in as a nation.
If you think it will be a couple decades before broadband is vital, you haven’t been paying attention for the past 20 years.
We are more and more technologically backward. Once, we were the world leader in technology. It’s sad.
Banking and bill-payment are increasingly done on-line. Without a broadband connection, navigating Flash and JavaScript-heavy e-commerce websites is incredibly tedious. Yet broadband access is still priced like some kind of luxury good; Time/Warner charges me $45/month for cable internet. I can’t get DSL because AT&T says it can’t justify the expense to establish the infrastructure in my area, so it’s cable or nothing.
It took a government mandate to get electrical and telephone service rolled out to “unprofitable” areas. What’s so strange about a government mandate to provide broadband access? Rather than silly, I think it’s very wise.
sorry, but I have to disagree, Oliver. Internet access is becoming more of a necessity like electricity and water. It’s a utility. Making sure that everyone has access to it — which is what the Finns are doing, not just giving it away — is a GOOD THING. And, I believe, expanding internet access to rural areas was something that Obama campaigned on.
With allowances for limited info, I have to say that this makes sense for the Finns.
I wish that it made sense for US.
Americans without internet access are getting further and further behind in regard to educational opportunities, job opportunities, and even access to governmental information that we with access consider vital to our daily lives. When I work at a public library I have many people trying to access job application sites and other things for very necessary reasons. Leaving these people behind is wrong, letting them slip further behind is even more wrong.
And it’s even less silly to compare Finland’s making of broadband access a right to the United States when you realize that we’ve been paying taxes on our phones and cell phone lines for many years now. And what were these surcharges for? To establish internet access for all. This money has been collected for years and we have little to show for it. When the average South Korean has better access to data than most wealthy Americans, something is wrong. We’re being given service that isn’t as good as the rest of the world gets, and we’re going to be suffering as a result for decades to come unless we fix things.
“When the average South Korean has better access to data than most wealthy Americans”
Internet access here in Korea has spoiled me rotten. Even the best connections in the States can’t compare to the speed and lack of breakdowns here.
Granted, it’s a smaller country but still.