Kudos to the Finnish government, which has just introduced laws guaranteeing broadband access to every person living in Finland (5.5 million people, give or take).
This is reportedly a first worldwide.
Starting July 2010, every person in Finland will have the right to a one-megabit broadband connection as an intermediate step, says the Ministry of Transport and Communications. By the end of 2015, the legal right will be extended to an impressive 100 Mb broadband connection for everyone.
According to Wikipedia, approximately 79 percent of the Finnish population use the Internet. Finland had around 1.52 million broadband Internet connections by the end of June 2007 or around 287 per 1,000 inhabitants.
(Via IntoMobile)
cheers to that!
so, what’s next, Finns? free meals? free education? free healthcare? oh wait, you got these already
damn you for making me jealous!
Not “free”. Paid by taxpayers.
Which, BTW, is not a statement on whether it is right or not to pay for something through taxes. Just a reminder that it is dangerous to think about government services as “free” – somebody always pays for them but the relationship between what you pay and what you get is not as easily measurable as with regular market transactions.
I hate you. All of you, you have no idea what you guys are talking about. Paid by Tax payers? That has noting to do with anything this guy was talking about, I hope you die. F you.
Jessetron, you are sorry!
Thank you Black Lady.
Yeah. Say something nerd.
NOT free, not even close.
This decision does NOT mean that any household gets a fully-government-paid internet access. No.
It means that for any household, including the backwater middle-of-nowhere ones, must be able to subscribe to a commercial 1 Mb connection for a “reasonable price”, whatever that means. Basically, they are going to require nation-wide telcos to provide certain level of service to all residents, but it’s not a free connection for anyone by any meaning of “free”.
Of course, treating such completely superfluous things as internet connectivity as a kind of utility service, and burdening private sector companies like telcos with a responsibility to actually offer some level of their services for everyone regardless their place of residence is a sign of a communist dictatorship that means Finland should be immediately embargoed by all Freedom-loving nations under God. That would sure teach them to respect the private corporations. And yes, there were futile attempts at sarcasm in this comment.
We can all agree internet is great, but it’s naive to applaud it being provided by the government. It shows a real lack of understanding of history or economics.
1. It costs money either way (taxes or to a private company) – nothing is free
2. Economics tells us it costs more to pay it in taxes due to government inefficiency
3. Under this new system even if someone doesn’t want internet they are still required to pay for it with taxes (under penalty of jail time). Mandatory internet is against freedom. You happen to agree with the idea of internet (as I do) so you applaud it in this case, but what if you disagree with the next thing government wants to make mandatory? It sets a dangerous precedent.
Let people purchase whatever they want with their own money. The government doesn’t have to decide for them.
As for the idea that it’s more fair, efficiency be damned, you only need to look at the Soviet Union so see why this doesn’t work. But you can check out this article if you need more convincing. Economic freedom correlates with MORE equality, and a higher standard of living even amongst the poorest people. Not to mention less corruption and bunch of other good things.
http://en.wikip...conomic_freedom
Brian
Thank you for making my point better than I ever could!
The Finnish and Soviet/US goverments are beasts of very different sizes, if not different natures; that’s partially why large-scale projects for Finnland are still manageable by a reasonable amount of bureaucracy.
If you’re making the argument that socialism works better than capitalism in small countries, I have yet to see any convincing evidence of that.
“Let people purchase whatever they want with their own money. The government doesn’t have to decide for them.”
The Finnish government does not decice for the people.
Example about the free school food. You are totally free to buy your own if wanted. It is just guaranteed that everyone get a meal, no matter do you have money or not or did your mom/dad make them with you.
Example about free healtcare. You are totally free to go privat doctor if wanted. You can even change your doctor if wanted. You are not forced to one specific doctor. You do not need to pay tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands to get doctor.
It is just secured that everyone, was he poor or rich, can get the treatment when needed.
And the hospital is not 100% free (and I am not talking about taxes here) to go. Everytime you go to see nurse, you pay 12,80 euros. You need to pay that if you go three times a year. After three times, it is free to go. So if you go three times a year to see nurse/doctor. You need to pay 3×12,80€. Of course if you work, the company will pay that for you. And, if you are needed to go from the basic healtcare (nurse/basic doctor) for special healtcare to policlinic (surgery, special doctor so on), you pay +24,50€ everytime. Even if you would go 10 times a year a example to small surgery (like removing tonsils, eye surgery etc) or big surgery, you pay 10×24,50€. + the extra bed place for every day what is over normal.
And after a month total time, or over 6000€/year fees, you get free healtcare. So you need to pay your own healtcare for that limit. Like all medicins and so on. Like if you want to get new teeth, what gets over 20 000€. You pay 6000€ for those and you get else free.
And what I told you about choosing the doctor, you can even select the surgery who will operate. If you want your family doctor who is heart surgeon, to operate your heart, he can do it. You do not need to accept the surgeon who would be on that date working. I have choosen my doctor and once surgeon for one operation. But I have went many times trough unknow doctors and you get what you need. And if you are unsertain from somethings, you can always ask other doctor (or nurse if case is small) to check things as well.
And about the fees, if you are poor and you do not have money to pay the bill. You can always go to socialoffice with it and they pay it for you. But you need to proof that you do not have money to pay it anyway, like you do not have oblications or any other whealt what you could soon sell. Of course you do not need to sell your house, car or anything else like that.
And example for the this 1Mbits internet connection, that is just the slowest limit from government what internet operators must guarantee to all citizens where they then live. And that is not free connection at all. If you want Internet connection, it is just promised that you get at least 1Mbits connection, and you are not forced to have somekind slow 56k, 128kbits or 256kbits connetions. Not even the 512kbits.
And Finnish government pays only the base networkking to country, that is even less than Swedish government did. And the last parts are build by ISP’s. And the citicens need to pay the last 2km from government base network to own house. That usually is digging what can be high as 4000€. + the cable placement and other work for that. So you might get expensive 1Mbits connection if you live alone long way. But, you are guranteed to have 1Mbits connection. That does not mean it must be done with cable. It can be wireless. Like on 450Mhz (the old NMT) or 3G or HSDPA. You are totally free to choose what operators you select from operators who are working on your area (usually 1-2 only). And you are usualy free to choose what kind networking you buy.
Only thing what is guaranteed, is that ISP’s need to offer you at least 1Mbits connetion, nothing less.
So government is not controlling at all the Internet connection. They are definietly not paying your Internet connections montly fees, you do that yourself. Usually that 1Mbits is 10€/month but can be as well 25€/month. It depends where you live and is there only one operator (monopoly on that area so price is high) or multiple (usually price is set to same because 2 is not enough for competition) so you can choose.
The Finnish Government is doing to networks like the things for roads. They just build the roads, but they do not force you at all to buy or drive cars what they want. But allows you to drive what you want.
The Government just makes sure that everyone, was he poor or rich, can get needed healtcare. They are not forcing you to listen only one doctor who they would order to take care of you. Or they do not definietly choose who lives or dies. They just make sure that everyone has the possibilities to get treatment.
But in Finland there has came the same idea to public healtcare as in US is right now. Politicians have been driving public healt care down and replacing it with insurance companies and other privat hospitals. Same time the healtcare quality has went down. The bureaucracy has hit the hospitals because of privat parties who want just money. Example. You would be waiting three weeks to heart surgery if you are not needing it right away. You can always go to privat hospital if wanted but it more expensive, even faster. But, the same surgeon who you meeted on public hospital, is on privat hospital as well. He is the person who operates you, came you on public or privat hospital. They even operates you on the same room, with same devices and so on. But it is more expensive for you. But it is less expensive for government, because they do not need to spend money from taxes (what you pay too) to operate you. But you pay it yourself. So the hospital gets better payment but government does not loose more than what it would take care of you in first place. The privat hospitals pay to other hospitals to get time to use their operationrooms, their devices and so on. And in the end, the privat hospitals slow downs a lotthe public healtcare, make the hospitl owners richer, and normal people loose lots of money. It is not about healtcare, it is about business. And that is it’s point. If you want best healtcare, you take public healtcare and forget the privat hospitals. And the privat hospitals rent the operation rooms for specific times a every day. Used them or not, the public hospital can not use them even it would be on next door and they would know there is no scheduled operation on it. And privat hospitals are not taking emergency situations at all. All goes to public hospitals. So if you were on car accident, you get surgery and treatment right away. Bill what you get is just the 24,50€. Nothing else. And same time lines goes longer on the public hospitals because privat hospitals are reting the other operation rooms what would be always in use and there would be no waiting time at all to get treatment on public side. Just like it was on 1980’s. Everything has gone down when the US model has be taking slowly in.
And now when someone would like to do the best choise in US. The business people get angry and start spreading propaganda about communism and socialism how they destroy the world and you can not choose your own doctor and government forces you to use things what they order and there would be somekind “death panels” giving orders who lives and who dies. Such big lies just to keep them in power and get richer and richer. And stupid people believes that and do not check the history how things were on better state on other countries what used the pure social healtcare. (And that means you should not even talk about communism, even there was things in better state than in US. right now.)
There is no such thing as a free lunch, you got that?
You don’t get “free” health care. You pay for it with taxes, 2 to 3 times more than in case of a direct private transaction (to cover costs of bureaucracy and transfers), but you don’t get the quality service, because the payment is disconnected from the payer.
So although you can choose a private doctor (oh, what a relief! they haven’t banned them yet!), you can’t afford him, because you already paid for the public “free” health care in taxes, which eat up approximatelly 70-80% of your gross salary.
Do your maths and go figure. Government is one big RIP OFF!
In Finland, the taxes are not nearly as high as you mention – you may be thinking of Sweden ?
There has to be a fine balance on the matters which you brought up.
Where is the greatest balance reached in good quality life ?
For those who value their freedom of expression as much as health, wealth, and prosperity, Finland is the place to be – according to recent studies:
http://news.yah...rosperity_index
I can’t address everything in this comment, but there is a very important point you are missing:
When you talk about being free to choose your own school lunch or go to a private doctor you they want, you are not realizing that if they do that they STILL have to pay for the government option. In effect, you are asking them to pay twice if they want that choice.
It would be like if you went to buy a car and the dealer said, well you have to buy car #1 here, it’s required by the government. You can use it if you want. But if you want car #2, well you still have to pay for car #1 even if you’re not going to use it, and you’ll pay for car #2 on top of that.
This is what wealthy people do every day by sending their children to private school. They still paid for public school through taxes even though they aren’t using it. They’ve essentially paid for school twice. That’s not freedom of choice at all if you still have to pay for the government option whether you use it or not.
The government does not provide anything for free, period. They are using your money, taxes, to pay for it.
I dunno, setting a mandatory bar for service providers would be a GOOD thing. There’s no reason in the US, given the massive subsidizing of the telcos/ISPs by the government, that they shouldn’t have to meet more consumer-friendly minimums (say 5 up/5 down for EVERYONE by 2012, and 100/100 by 2020).
The system we have is ridiculous – AT&T paid a pittance for the right to provide cell service it can’t actually provide to its customers – and yet still charges exorbitant fees to supposedly “cover these costs”…
Not for free definitely, as government decision it may become mandatory and therefore costs 100 eur/month.
wow, that’s kinda pointless. How will they go about implementing such a measure.
Was that really an issue? Was someone trying to limit user access to the internet?
Its called taxes. You pay more and the government can in return give us certain things such as free internet. By doing this they are giving anyone the right to learn and will push the nation to progress in the future.
I agree. This is great news as oppose to lot of discussion going on in US to adopt pay per use model which is customer has to pay more if he uses more.
Great news all around… I wish more countries, after a few other higher priority rights were taken care of first, did the same. It’s a priority for a nation to advance with future technologies and with all its evils, the internet is also a major source of good as well.
Jon @ WoodMarvels.com
If you pay taxes on something it isn’t free.
The article and the links are extremely vague on what ‘access’ to 1Mb means.
Is an internet cafe within 5 miles of your house ‘access’?
Wasn’t clear if this was a gov’t service at all. It might be similar to cable companies in the US. When they want the right to sell service in a county, that county generally negotiates with them to provide cable service to the rural areas within a certain number of years.
I think it means real access from your home. In urban areas that means a broadband and in extreme rural areas that could mean somekind of mobile or wireless connection.
1. Like you said, it was paid for in taxes. Therefore, it is not a free good. A little less naiveté please.
2. Do not confuse access to information with people actually learning anything useful.
3. Plenty of loonies on the Internet spewing nonsense. E.g. Abolishing the Federal Reserve, 9/11 being an inside job, moon-landing a hoax, etc. Plenty of loonies to eat those nonsense up as well.
4. But I won’t mind a 100 MB broadband connection myself!
Stop the indignant nonsense guys. A lot of things are “free” because they are provided by the government. Food stamps are free, about 30% of school lunches are free, antibiotics for VD are free. Big deal. Not the end of the world. It’s not gonna kill ya just because the other guy can check his email for “free.”
They aren’t provided by the government. They are provided by the taxpayers, usually with little choice by the taxpayers. You listed a few good things, but most of what we provide “for free” is bullshit.
Actually, none of those things are “free”. I’m guessing you didn’t pass Econ101, because if you did you would know there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Instead you embrace the selfish, infantile notion that if someone else is paying for it, then it’s “free”. Good luck with running a society, don’t come knocking when the Reichstag burns down.
Lots of loonies in here too with nothing better to do than discuss this to death. It’s very simple: the Finns have now legally guaranteed everyone in the country will have access to 1 Mb broadband by next year and 100 Mb by 2015. That means they have made a commitment to building infrastructure to meet these guarantees.
That’s it. Now go back to playskool all of you. Reichtag, whether it’s free, Econ 101 – really. You’re presenting for a well known disease.
Dont be a stupid. it is not a free connection at all. The government just forces ISP’s to deliver everyone at least the 1Mbits connection. Every client pays the montly fee about their connection what they get. No one gets anykind connection freely, or because taxes. It is just base network what gets mostly paid by ISP’s clients on their bills.
The thing is that this does not mean *free* internet for everybody. It means that all the nationwide operators (In US this propably would mean AT&T, Sprint & T-mobile) must offer a broadband connection with minimum speed of 1Mbps to everyone/everywhere. They don’t have to give it for free, but the price also has to be ‘reasonable’ (what ever that might be…). In Finland there are only 2-4 operators ‘land wide’ operators: Elisa, Sonera, and possibly Finnet & dna.
This simply means that people who live in cities subsidize the high costs of rural area internet connection with in their broadband connection prices. I can see urban people bitching about this, but the finnish gov’t is ran by a bunch of corrupted hay hats from the redneck areas of the country, and their folks have now heard that there is this thing called “intarnet” and want their share of it too.
It’s a law: it doesn’t require any actions from gov’t: I consider this as a PR move.
Or people know the government will always provide for them and they will become content.
Grrrr, I hate it when other people are content!
No, I hate it when I am forced at gunpoint to pay for other people’s contentedness. We are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, not to have it provided to us and paid for by others.
Would be very nice if this would also be done in the Netherlands!
The 100 Mb part is also very nice, if this would be done in the entire EU, this would allow for tremendous improvements of broadband connections.
WOW..
Just awesome.. I wish to see something like this in India as well.. :[ atleast better internet speed at affordable costs are fine.
Congrats Finland..
yea… i agree..
here in india we don’t even proper broadband. providers here sell boradband with speed as low as 256kbps. it s*cks.. y am i not finnish.. FML :/
Socialists.
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher.
If you think I’m going to fund your porn surfing, you’re quite mistaken.
Haha, adds new meaning to free porn doesn’t it? I thought porn was pretty free already, now it’s even freer in Finland.
In my opinion – this could enable people to generate more money, thus breaking the circle you describe.
Have you watched these videos?
http://www.thel...g/20090423/436/
I recommend you do so, it’s pretty awesome. People live preeetty good in there.
Cheers!
Does the term ‘useful idiot’ mean anything to you?
Your an idiot. Typical small thinking right wing elitist.
“Your an idiot.”
Oh, the irony.
Back to Hooked on Homophones.
*You’re. If you’re going to cut someone down based on their intelligence, the least you can do is proof-read your own comment.
+1 Sane. Didn’t see your comment there [ I don't get free broadband
]
I’m sure she did.
Natalie, if you have a problem with the belief that man should live free from the bondage of central government, I suggest you take it up with the founding fathers of the United States of America.
We will not abide by YOUR elitist, socialist nonsense. You and your kind will bury this once proud nation.
Being proud does not imply being correct.
What is your point? If defending individual liberty in the face of federal authority is wrong, then I don’t want to be right. In fact, if that’s your point, then this entire country was formed in error. Perhaps after more than two centuries of such unprecedented growth and success, the USA owes it to the rest of the world to surrender its sovereignty and exit stage left? Please do grow up.
Thomas Jefferson. You make statements about the founding fathers but do you subscribe to them all?
They also hated political parties, thought countries should effectively have a revolution every twenty years and pretty much despised organised religion (especially as it related to government). I think your taxes are more taken electronically than by gunpoint.
Just so long as you subscribe to all the founding fathers ideals….not just pick and choose because you don’t believe in oh…. I don’t know…. universal health care I’m guessing.
Those unproven quotes will never die out.
It’s funny that exactly people from countries which suffer most lately (U.S., UK) quote those nonsense.
Especially the U.S., a country with a deficit so high that no one can really grasp that number anymore, is talking about socialists using other people’s money. After all the U.S. is pretty much living off other people’s money for decades now.
The day will come when the Chinese will stop giving endless amount of loans without any serious chance to ever get it back. And that day will mark the end of the U.S. as a superpower.
Why are you under the impression that someone complaining about socialists is in favor of the US government borrowing so much money. Most libertarians are against that as well……..
That’s not quite correct. As soon as OPEC countries stop trading oil in Dollars the currency (and therefore the American Empire) will collapse. This is just a matter of time.
Just like Rome the US overextended it’s military and overused natural resources. Add to that American arrogance and patriotism being raised to a religion (citizens of which other country shout out “God bless X” a million times a day?). Unless the US very quickly changes course (something i don’t see happening with their mindset) it’s a lame duck.
Just like other big empires throughout history the fall of the American empire will be humiliating and come rather unexpectedly to the general uninformed public.
Those are some broad generalizations against Americans. Perhaps those who insist on calling Americans “arrogant” are, themselves, arrogant. It’s called projection.
Stop the name-calling. Americans are quite like everyone else in the world. We require food, shelter, and those things needed for basic survival. But broadband, I do believe, is not a necessity.
It really is marvelous how quickly people will ignore countries that prove their ideologies to be wrong, or they claim (from an anecdote) that those countries are filled with people who hate the system and would all prefer privatized services.
Ha!
very narrow-minded.
let me give you a 5-letter answer: NOKIA
how simple minded are you? how is guaranteeing the population broadband access for the future in a world where it will become virtually impossible to do without, as you put it “socialism”?
the problem with america ergo americans is that your all extreme right or extreme left! where is the moderation? where is the unity required of a nation for it to survive and prosper into the future?
where is the moderation?
“The moderation” is hiding under the bushes while the conservatives and liberals sling mud and hot sauce at each other. Remember the Clinton Democrats? Us nice, centrist folk? You’d think we’re gone with the wind but truth is, we’re hiding ’cause we’re scared- both parties have let the fringe elements take over until there is no middle ground left. It’s like civil war here without the weaponry, and I’m getting tired of it.
So, you say that Finland is running out of money?
http://www.stat...us_en.html#Debt
I don’t think so, they seem to have been able to actually reduce their debt over the years.
“The problem with Margaret Thatcher is that she’s a fascist and not very bright nor nice” JK, Oct 2009
Go Finland, Clever!
Go Finland
wow !
Congratulations ! Who’s next ?
broadband a “legal right”? uh….wow…
Yay, for socialism…
India will take another 200 years
yup.. i guess make that 2000 years.. or probably we will use internet on some other planet
“Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I want to be!”
So they have the right to a 1mega bit connection with a 10 megabyte monthly cap. Hurray! Just enough to check text emails for a week.
We don’t have monthly cap in Finland throughout all carriers. And Normal people don’t know even what does such mean.
No monthly caps here.
No monthly caps here.
And by the way – Finns have the right to *buy* a 1MB (minimum) broadband. Basically this news just means that the minimum speed has been upped to 1MB and the operators must make this available even in the rural areas.
While I applaud the initiative by the Finnish Government to make sure every citizen has a decent internet access. This isn’t a new thing.
Many countries have made internet access a “Human Right”. Which is why in some countries it is against the law to cut off someone from the internet for illegal downloads.
http://en.wikip...s_a_human_right
http://www.mark...l-right-041191/
http://openmedi...on.org/node/733
But I’m not sure making “internet access” as important as the other Human Rights, in my view, is making a mockery of those other Human Rights…
Agreed.
In theory it is a great idea for the Finish government to grant everyone the “legal right” to Broadband access. However, I wonder how this would work in practice.
Supposedly the currently rate of broadband access in Finland is 79%. This is impressive, but still means that someone (it is not clear who) is legally obliged to supply internet access to the remaining 21% of the population.
There is bound to be a few tough cases where it is simply not possible. What happens then? Who can these people sue to get compensation and/or to get the relevant local authority to provide them with broadband.
I don’t think it’s a _free_ internet for everyone. It just means broadband internet has to be available to you no matter where you live (even in the middle of nowhere). So by 2015 everyone will have to be able to get 100 meg connection if they want to (but not for free).
Would somebody explain how this is good news?
What the fuck, TC.
The liberal mind is innocent and naive, Lewis.
Article forgot to mention that every household will be taxed for around 170€/year; known as TV/Internet Tax. Independently if TV or Internet is used in that household…
170€/year for 100mb broadband?? I want it!
You have the right to have it (guaranteed access), not that it’s free service. Actually prices are quite expensive here. from 29 to 35 € for 10Mbs as of today.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Carl Marx, 1875.
It doesn’t actually say that it will be for free, does it? Guaranteeing access to everyone does not necessarily imply that it’s going to be free.
On a sidenote: Switzerland has introduced broadband access to everyone back in 2007 (at 600kbits/s, http://bit.ly/2eEaRy). You still have to pay for it, though, which is fair enough.
This is a superb precedent, and I imagine many other markets, EU and beyond, will be watching closely to see what affect this move has on things like human services, ecommerce, entertainment & media consumption — and community!
I wonder about this line in the original piece re mobile: ” Some variation will be allowed, if connectivity can be arranged through mobile phone networks”. Surely this wouldn’t be limited to fixed line broadband? (How very “2005″ that would be… )
TK
Here’s how it works:
The government gives you the ‘right’ to broadband, and supplies it for free.
years pass.
People complain that ‘government-funded’ broadband is being used for ‘inappropriate’ and ‘wasteful’ purposes.
years pass.
Laws are passed prohibiting viewing certain speech or websites on the government-funded broadband.
years pass.
People dump their ‘free’ broadband in favor of private internet access at 10 times the cost.
years pass.
The government, seeing it can’t control access to people’s news, passes laws banning private internet access.
years pass.
The government issues computers that can only visit government-approved websites. You must accept the computer or be fined or imprisoned.
years pass and nothing happens, because free speech is so completely destroyed that no one will create ideas, websites, innovations.
Now, take all of this, and substitute health care for internet access.
A ‘right’ to health care.
‘Free’ health care provided by the government.
‘Inappropriate’ and ‘wasteful’ use of heath care by abortionists, illegal immigrants, and old people.
Laws passed limiting or denying healthcare to abortionists, immigrants and old people.
People flock to private clinics at 10 times the price.
The government bans private clinics, creating back-alley doctors for abortions, treating immigrants, and saving old people.
The government passes laws saying you must use their healthcare or insurance plan or face being fined or imprisoned.
Don’t think it can happen?
You haven’t been watching the news.
In Japan, you can be jailed and sent to a re-education camp if you’re more than 50 pounds overweight.
The bill that just passed the US Senate Finance Committee provides for fines and jail time for those who won’t sign onto the government health plan.
Enjoy your free toys while you can, but remember, the people who gave you the toys do so because they want to be your parent. They want to control you.
Good luck with that.
“In Japan, you can be jailed and sent to a re-education camp if you’re more than 50 pounds overweight.”
Untrue like most of the above.
American right wingers like you are brainwashed idiots. Seriously, the whole world moved over and you still have Cold War “socialists eat babies” mindset.
+1
Socialists don’t eat babies, but they do claim unequivocally to know what’s best for you. Do you disagree?
By the way, you aren’t doing yourself any favors by dumbing yourself down to the level of “brainwashed right wingers”.
The lessons of history lost on the youngest generation of brainwashed liberals is a sad reflection on the standards set by our federal education system.
That just shows that your privatised systems have butchered the public systems. The highest standards of living in the world are in countries with free education and free health care. This is fact, supported by evidence.
The only thing the US is the best at is making money….and that’s not really going to plan at the moment is it?
“Socialists don’t eat babies, but they do claim unequivocally to know what’s best for you.”
Ironically, so do you.
If I may offer a suggestion, I recommend that you get out of South Carolina more. The world is not as bad a place as you’ve been lead to believe.
Having been to Finland and knowing a thing or two about its political system, customs and mentality of its people, I can assure you that the possibility of suppression of free speech there is remote at best.
At the same time, I wish that there was more informed and meaningful speech in the States, not just free speech.
Wow – very compelling.
Not at all realistic since you totally made that up.
Not an apples-to-apples comparison at all (odd, since this is your little world you’re living in).
But a thrilling slippery-slope argument, the fact that it’s pure conjecture slathered over a core of solid bullshit notwithstanding.
Just – wow.
You are going to be really bitter and frustrated 50 years from now when none of your predictions come true.
You people that bemoan the governmeng getting involved and forcing companies to provide a minimum level of access are pathetic, fear mongerers. OMG, that big scary government!! You are scared of government but bend over for corporations. Is the corporate lube better? The two municipalities that fought the corporate scam in South Carolina and … Minnesota I believe, are proof that your fear mongering about government providing affordable access/service are just that. It is amazing how quickly the corporations involved shaped up and provided the service asked of by the people once shown how the people, through their proper use of government intervention could obtain their own goals without the greedy corporations looking for their handouts at every turn. Finland, Spain, and I’m sure more will fall to that heinous thing called affordable access. Ee-gads!
I’ll take overhead and administration costs over greed any day.
How long before this bill ends up in the US-HoR? I can see it now in the 2109 history books… “Life, Liberty, Broadband, and the pursuit of happiness”
Good gracious.
I can’t wait until someone starts providing all of the things that I should have a legal right to… (of course I’m going to have to wait until someone else takes the initiative to pass those laws as I’m inherently useless and unable to provide for myself).
I should move there.
Lets hope the EU grab this and push implementation throughout the EU. Broadband of 1MB is just barely broadband but it’s a start.
You have confused a “right” with an “entitlement”. A right prevents someone from taking something from you and does not cost anything, except possibly for enforcement. Examples are: freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to bear arms.
An entitlement requires someone (usually the government) to give something to you. This usually costs something, and so is allowing someone to take something from you, at least if you are the one required to fulfill or pay for the entitlement. Examples are: the “right” to health care, “right” to legal representation, and the “right” to broadband access.
The right to broadband access means no one can prevent you obtaining broadband access. I think most countries have this right. What you refer to as the “right” to broadband access is actually the entitlement of “free” broadband access.
I’m not saying the government should or should not have these entitlements, just that they are fundamentally different than rights. Understanding the difference is fundamental to understanding government.
Thank you, Wayne.
Yep, good point. I agree with TJ.
It guarantees access, but NOT free access.
Can’t wait for the guaranteed 100Mbps though, I find my 24Mbps lacking sometimes…
‘And I find my Ferrari a bit slow.’
Please have- or at least show- some consideration.
This is REALLY good and ALMOST as good as the Plan Ceibal in Uruguay.
“One computer per child”
ALL the public school now have a laptop to use with an iMesh WiFi network connection.
For further details go to
http://www.urug...?viewStory=3607
Wow, Finland rules. Great pic!
Americans dont understand socialism. Just stfu and gtfo americans.
Socialists don’t understand America. Shut thy trap kindly and get thyself lost in return, thank ye kindly.
Interpret socialism any way you want, it can never escape implying that consensus is truth, and that one person’s legitimate claim of right can be trumped by the “will” of some mob or another. Whether or not socialists intended it this way is irrelevant; that’s just the way socialism works out.
Contrast this with individualism, which never, ever evades the fact that it only takes one person to be absolutely right, that truth is truth even when only one person believes it, and that an innocent person is still innocent no matter how many people say otherwise.
You just don’t need to know any more than that to understand that socialism is evil.
Nice, congrats to Finland, unlucky i live in Italy and here the governmente doesn’t help so much the diffusion of web tecnology…
by the way i translate in Italian language this post on my web site
Congrats also for the site… you are very professional
Great stuff happening in Finland. GO FINLAND!
To clarify: the law doesn’t say that everyone should be provided broadband access for free, it says that Internet Service Providers need to sell you broadband access regardless of where you live. Previously, 1 mb broadband was not available in some of the more rural regions of the country.
Those who can read Finnish can verify this at http://www.hs.f...i/1135250023576 .
What does this even mean? There is no information in the article, or in the article you linked to.
It’s a nice headline, but without any information on what it means it’s kind of useless. Is the government nationalizing the ISPs, or is it simply forcing the ISPs to provide service everywhere regardless of consumer demand?
I can see the link I add is not the best one
This one have all the information.
http://wiki.lap..._Uruguay/Ceibal
See ya
Alex.
Hear! Hear! Universal availability! (Yes, not provision: availability!
North Americans, stop mimimizing…
Way to go Finland
very awesome. wish in Ukraine the things were the same )
Hey peopple,
I think that making something a Right isn’t a bad idea, even if there are other important things that also should be a Right.
@Yeah Right: it’s not “the Finland gov pays your Internet connection”. It’s “Finland gov ensures you’ll be able to have a 100Mb Internet connection”. It’s something like being sure there will be infrastructures to cover everyone’s Internet connection.
Another thing: Internet may be (is?) the remplacement for Fixed phones, TV, Radio, Newspapers, etc. It’s like the MULTIDIRECTIONAL connectivity to the rest of people OF THE WORLD. I think that if there is the posibility to do so, EVERYONE should have the right to use it, as it was for TV, phone or newspapers.
And, wow, it’d be free because two reasons:
1.- Wired and Wireless connections aren’t as expensive as ISP take from us every year.
2.- If you have no money (or not enough to pay food AND internet), its an unfairness because you are loosing job oppportunities, learning opportunities, etc. And its possible that your bad economy isn’t your fault, or your good economy the result of your effort: it may be the diference between being the son of a banker, or a son of the bitch.
God Bless Finland!
Awesome, Awesome, AWESOME!!!. So, who’s Next…
Switzerland already has such a right, too, a decision made in 2006 and implemented in 2008 iirc. See e.g. http://de.wikip.../Service_public.
Internet access is just like health care, it is a responsibility, not a right. I’m not going to call anyone socialist or fascist since I’m politically moderate, but I think governments should be worrying about established human rights.
Here in the U.S. we can’t even get people to agree that basic health care is a right. I would guess universal broadband won’t be happening in our lifetime.
That’s because basic health care simply isn’t a freedom to which we are all entitled to at birth. You can say it is, but that does not make it so. Our creator did not endow us with bodies immune to illness, and thus we are not born entitled to live without sickness. Doctors may be morally obligated to tend to your illness, but I am not morally obligated to pay for it.
The last time I checked, Americans have the “right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.” Not government-provided health and happiness at the expense of their neighbors.
To propose that health care be considered a human right is not only wrong headed, it is unhelpful. Mature debate on the rationing and sharing of limited resources can hardly take place when citizens start from the premise that health care is their right, like a fair trial or the right to vote.
And you propose that broadband be included as a fundamental human right? Are we born entitled to own our own home? How well did policies encouraging that pan out in the past 10 yeras? What other services and luxuries are we born entitled to?
Where does your self-entitled attitude end?
I knew it was about health care. Private health insurance is designed to make money. Either by charging higher premiums or by denying health care to some.
The logical conclusion is that a not for profit health care fund would provide it at either a cheaper price or not exclude people from health care.
All essential services should remain the property of the citizens and be devoid of profiteering. Water, Sanitation, Education, health care. These are things a civilised society has decided are an entitlement of all it’s citizens. if not perhaps a stint with Mugabe as leader might be a better proposition. All the wealthy people are looked after in those kinds of regimes.
How many scientists or teachers or cultural icons suffered through a childhood illness and came form a poor family. If there is even ONE then universal health care is of immeasurable benefit to human society.
Nonsense. “Scientists,” “teachers,” and “cultural icons” are a dime a dozen.
Problems in the world, such as disease, are not solved by lab coats or mortarboard caps, they are solved through thought and action, which happens not in ivory towers, but down here on the streets, and very often entails someone having to get paid…
…and the problems certainly aren’t going to solve themselves just because a “civilized society” has decided that it and its members are “entitled.”
Good news from Finland!!!
I simply cannot understand why so many North Americans are complaining here… I think that is because USA just downgraded to “3th world” and they cannot understand why very high developed countries like Finland are years and years ahead.
Doing just fine here in the “3th world”, thanks.
Tell you what: give us some of your Scandanavian blondes, and we’ll give you Al Gore. He invented the internet, so surely he can help you guys out with your “free for all” programs.
Please, seriously, take Al Gore! I insist…
Finland is actually regressing by restricting the freedoms of their people. The notion that broadband access is an innate human right is downright laughable, and if it is not economically viable to provide broadband it in some locations, then what justification is there? The Finnish government is exposing its authoritarian leanings. Way to go, Finland, keep on goosestepping your way into the future.
Define economically viable?
Nothing in this world has a value but that which we place upon it. In times of plenty an apple is worth less than in times of famine. If they determine it is economically viable…even by creating something artificial, does it not make it so?
A carbon tax will do just that. create an economical incentive to produce less carbon from a purely artificial construct. Finland is also a small country. Providing adequate broadband should not be a terribly difficult process as technology progresses.
You are right about this actually being restricting freedom, but there is one big plus that you probably don’t recognize. When the law guarantees broadband access (basically: sufficient access to internet), many many government services can be moved to be Internet-based. Thus reducing costs sharply.
I think this makes it an acceptable government investment, because reducing costs in the long run benefits all taxpayers (except those who die in the next five years but hey… nothing is perfect).
Secondly, as Internet is the forum of free speech nowdays, I can not see why the notion that broadband access is human right in “developed countries” would be that laughable (at least if you check the development on France, Hadopi, etc.).
There is no such thing as a “right” to anything that isn’t free. If I have a “right” to the Internet, then who is providing that right? How are his rights not violated by being forced to provide it?
On the other hand, you can have a right to freedom of speech, because it’s free. Nobody has to listen.
hear hear… God Bless Finland!
Quite a lot of confusion about this, even though Kaj and others have already pointed out important clarifications about this law.
I understand that for some people whatever government does is socialism, but this is actually a very clear case of the government sticking to its legislative role and leaving the implementation and service providing to commercial companies.
First a bit of context: Finland has 5.5 million inhabitants at an area almost as large as Germany or California. So we have long distances and very sparse population. For network infrastructure this means that while building networks at cities can be a profitable business, reaching people in rural areas is expensive.
This is one aspect of it. The other is that broadband access is considered crucial, as more and more services, public and private, move online. Without access you could be in a great disadvantage, and this problem would be largest at the rural areas where the online services would be most needed/useful.
So the government has a plan: they want to legislate that large network providers are required to provide broadband internet access to all permanent residencies and private enterprises, as well as public administration, with “reasonable cost”. And the access speed has to be 1MB by next July and 100MB by 2015. Everything else is left to the companies to decide, including choice of technology. (The definition of “1MB” has an allowance that it can be a bit lower temporarily, meaning that a fast mobile internet will fulfill the conditions.) This is the minimum level, they are free to provide any services they want, higher speeds with higher prices etc. as long as in every address there is this minimum service level available.
The implementation of this is monitored by the Finnish Communications Regulations Authority, the same body that is responsible for the .fi domain etc.
So no, this is not “free” socialist internet paid for by the tax payers that is going to be censored by communist mind-police before crumbling like soviet-era suburbs. This is going to have a cost, and that cost is paid for by those who live in areas (big cities) where the companies could potentially provide this minimum access for less than the “reasonable cost”, as the companies need to mark up these contracts to pay for the expensive rural connections.
But, as there’s still competition, prices are going to continue to come down, and I’m especially looking forward to the 100MB roll-out. The companies here have been somewhat reluctant to build these faster networks, and this will force them to invest.
If you are interested in more info about this, there’s a year-old press statement: http://bit.ly/3ozbB
I hope they’ll publish this new one (which is not a new idea, or a new decision, just in the news because the timetable of this was pushed forward) at the same site soon.
Surf in peace!
If we’d give away prizes for the smartest comments, you’d have taken a serious lead in this thread.
I agree Tommi, it seems the world will move on, and Americans will stay behind discussing how much percentage of control the government must have, and how much can be left to the individual…..
BRAVO Tommi.
/bow
Interesting comment, but I’m still unclear why you think this would be a net gain to society?
There are lots of tradeoffs to living in a rural part of town. For example, the commute into town is longer but the property prices are lower to accommodate this.
If internet is more expensive or non-existent there this is just one more factor in how people decide where to live.
If internet companies are required to provide internet in a place where it isn’t profitable, they only have a few options:
1. raise prices to all customers to cover additional costs in rural areas
2. get subsidies from the government (which is also raising costs to everyone in the form of taxes)
Either way, you have taken resources from people in non-rural areas and given it to rural areas.
There is a benefit to this in that now more people can use the internet. There is also a cost to this in that you have either raised taxes or prices for all customers. Economics tells us the cost outweighs the benefit here – it’s more efficient to have everyone pay for only what they will use, and let this be another natural market force on where people decide to live.
See: http://en.wikip...conomic_freedom
Countries with the most economic freedom are “correlated with higher living standards, economic growth, income equality”. That last one is important – it also correlates with societies that are more FAIR, not just efficient.
Letting companies choose the technology and being as hand off as possible is a step in the right direction, but it’s still government intervention which will create a net loss. With every benefit you have to measure the associated cost.
Brian
Most Finns I know (although I don’t know what the percentage is) have dwellings in both city and rural areas. Their cottages in the country side (well, usually lake side) are almost as important as their main houses as they spend a good part of their summers (the best time of the year here, believe me) there. So to many of them, they will be paying for their own benefits. In that sense it won’t really be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If that’s true it’s doesn’t change my argument.
Scenario 1:
I pay $50/month for internet in my city home and $100/month for internet in my rural home.
Scenario 2:
I pay $75/month for internet in my city home and $75/month in my rural home because the government has decreed everybody should pay the same price.
In the best case here you have added zero benefit because the consumer still pays the same total amount. But it’s not the best case because in scenario 2 you have the additional cost of funding a government body (with taxes) to oversee the whole thing. The internet companies costs also go up because they use time and resources meeting government regulations, meeting with auditors, etc so they raise their prices to cover costs. There are other disadvantages like future companies being less willing to invest in a country where they know they’ll have to deal with government regulation, but you get the idea.
In other words, you’ve added an additional burden for no gain.
A properly defined right is simply the ability of somebody to not be forcibly obstructed in the pursuit of their values (as long as such pursuit does not involve force or fraud itself.)
There is no such thing as a right to something provided by somebody else. That is invariably a *violation* of actual rights because it necessarily involves the use of government guns to take from B to give to A.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Phillip.
Well said, Philip.
You are completely right.
How is philip right? When has your government ever taken anything from you at gun point? (unless of course you happen to live in Rwanda, Somalia, North Korea etc)
Every April 15. People pay their taxes because they fear what the government (the only people liberals say should have guns) will do to you.
But it’s not that they fear the government will shoot them. It’s that they fear the government will fine them. The taken at gunpoint is a hyperbole. Unless taxes are now hostages or abused children?
It’s not because they fear the government will shoot them. It’s because they fear the government will fine them. To compare the two is a gross exaggeration. Unless taxes are now hostages or abused children (actual situations where the government takes something from you at gunpoint).
‘taken at gunpoint’ and ‘being fined’ are just two ways of saying the same thing. the fundamental issue is that a percentage of your wealth is being taken from you by FORCE (i.e. not by your voluntary consent), and that the Government is the entity initiating such use of FORCE.
the fact that the government is not Actually pointing a gun at your head is irrelevant. the point is that you, as a taxpayer, have absolutely no say in the matter of whether that slice of your wealth is going to be taken or not.
focus on the fundamental issue, not the specific concrete examples
A lot of people actually go to jail for not paying taxes. Presumably they guard these jails with guns. So yes in a very literal sense of the word the government can take your money at gunpoint.
Most people aren’t dumb enough to actually get shot over it, but that doesn’t mean the threat isn’t real.
My hat is off to you, Phil.
Nicely said.
What makes them think broadband access is a right? What about cell phones? land lines? TV?
Also, what’s the catch? If the government is providing this will you be able to look at porn? download pirated movies/music?
Overall if broadband is a right, everything should be a right. I want a free home, free money, free food, free booze, free drugs, free movies, free clothes and free vacations and to start.
because internet is like air these days
because everybody IN FINLAND already has a cell phone (then who needs a land line?)
because TV makes you dumb
enough?
“free money”!!
Do you pay for money at this moment
I forgot to add the “?”
So here it is: “?”