Finland First to Make Broadband a Legal Right

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The move is actually nothing but a mandate for the telecommunications industry to make access to the internet available to all of Finland's citizens. Of course, that won't stop the free market fetishists from calling it slavery anyway.

Okay. It makes sense to me now, Dog.

I suppose that slave-owners merely mandated their slaves to perform field work in exchange for the slave-owner's determined price. Sounds fair, yeah?

Euphemisms are awesome!

I must have missed the piece where the government mandated any price for the service to be provided. Making shite up is awesome, isn't it?

[dalegg 143]

Somewhere we got confused and convinced ourselves that having a right to something means someone has to give it to you. The legal precedent in America is that having a right to something means that the government can't restrict or prohibit access to it. It doesn't mean that anybody has to give it to you.

The move is actually nothing but a mandate for the telecommunications industry to make access to the internet available to all of Finland's citizens. Of course, that won't stop the free market fetishists from calling it slavery anyway. After all, if the government gets involved in the interest of those it is to serve, it must be something outrageous and evil.

According to local reports, the Ministry of Transport and Communications in Helsinki has pushed through a law that will force telecommunications providers to offer high speed internet connections to all of the country's 5.3 million citizens.

...

Finland is already one of the world's most connected countries, with 96% of citizens online - but the communications minister, Suvi Linden, said that the mandate was necessary in order to improve the availability of internet in Finland's remote rural areas.

As long as the city folks understand their bill is going to go up so that infrustructure can be laid out over 500km to serve 5 homes, what the heck?

[Heracles 417]

people sure come up with some silly ideas about what they have a right to.

No doubt.

Broadband internet must first be "produced" before it may be "consumed"--the same as any other good/service in existence.

Having an inherent "right" to the labor of another is pure slavery.

Matt, you have never enlightened us on what your background, as in education, is in.

Broadband has to be produced? Once again you totally miss the point. Why would a monopoly care about improving anything? Do you actually believe the American consumer does not demand higher broadband speeds or even broadband in general? Cable, cell and phone companies here do not give a #######. To them it's all about ARPU. The severe lack of competition in so many areas has simply worsened this. What part of that do you not comprehend?

Without federal government intervention, the incumbents (monopolies) in various areas will continue to remain monopolies. Verizon is laying FIOS in one area, while AT&T lays their network in another. As a result, they will never compete. Their competition is usually one other cable company. We have 303 million cell customers with 4 major cell carriers. Europe has 400 million, with 50 to 70 cell carriers.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

people sure come up with some silly ideas about what they have a right to.

No doubt.

Broadband internet must first be "produced" before it may be "consumed"--the same as any other good/service in existence.

Having an inherent "right" to the labor of another is pure slavery.

Matt, you have never enlightened us on what your background, as in education, is in.

He has.

I've only got a GED!

[SMR 368]

The move is actually nothing but a mandate for the telecommunications industry to make access to the internet available to all of Finland's citizens. Of course, that won't stop the free market fetishists from calling it slavery anyway.

Okay. It makes sense to me now, Dog.

I suppose that slave-owners merely mandated their slaves to perform field work in exchange for the slave-owner's determined price. Sounds fair, yeah?

Euphemisms are awesome!

I must have missed the piece where the government mandated any price for the service to be provided. Making shite up is awesome, isn't it?

I didn't say the government mandated a price. I said that if they didn't, the mandate would be meaningless. If any person in the boondocks wants internet, the company can just say it will cost an installation fee of a couple million euros.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The move is actually nothing but a mandate for the telecommunications industry to make access to the internet available to all of Finland's citizens. Of course, that won't stop the free market fetishists from calling it slavery anyway.

Okay. It makes sense to me now, Dog.

I suppose that slave-owners merely mandated their slaves to perform field work in exchange for the slave-owner's determined price. Sounds fair, yeah?

Euphemisms are awesome!

I must have missed the piece where the government mandated any price for the service to be provided. Making shite up is awesome, isn't it?

I didn't say the government mandated a price. I said that if they didn't, the mandate would be meaningless. If any person in the boondocks wants internet, the company can just say it will cost an installation fee of a couple million euros.

I didn't say that you said the government mandadet a price - unless you're Matt. And I don't think the mandate would be meaningless without a price dictate. The way I read it, the mandate is to make the access available to everyone; whether everyone wants it or not. So, the telecommunication companies will have to build braodband capacity in the hypothetical boondocks to fulfill the mandate and then offer access at a price where they will have takers. This will pre-empt your hypothetical installation fee of a couple million Euros unless the telecommunication company want to built an access that surely nobody will use - i.e. the infamous bridge to nowhere.

[mRx 16]

people sure come up with some silly ideas about what they have a right to.

No doubt.

Broadband internet must first be "produced" before it may be "consumed"--the same as any other good/service in existence.

Having an inherent "right" to the labor of another is pure slavery.

Matt, you have never enlightened us on what your background, as in education, is in.

He has.

I've only got a GED!

That's correct.

It's really a shame that someone needs a framed piece of paper to be taken seriously.

[almaty 19]

true

but a frame piece of paper is acceptable currency for allot of jobs in america

[Niels Bohr 72]

Heck, my boss will accept no less than college degree. I wouldn't want some amateur with a GED messing up the lab equipment that costs more than your house.

[Der Bücherwurm 1]

people sure come up with some silly ideas about what they have a right to.

No doubt.

Broadband internet must first be "produced" before it may be "consumed"--the same as any other good/service in existence.

Having an inherent "right" to the labor of another is pure slavery.

Matt, you have never enlightened us on what your background, as in education, is in.

He has.

I've only got a GED!

That's correct.

It's really a shame that someone needs a framed piece of paper to be taken seriously.

No one needs a piece of paper to be taken seriously. However, they do need to have an adequate education and the intelligence to discuss things in a well informed manner.

[_Simpson_ 250]

people sure come up with some silly ideas about what they have a right to.

Like Guns? Or freedom to literally say or do anything, without any consequences? I know what you mean. What sort of developed first word country has such stupid laws?

I think you will find first world countries tend to legislate things that actually improve people's lives. Like a right to a fair minimum wage. A right to adequate vacation time and safe working conditions. A right to be compensated if your job is moved overseas. A right to a fair dismissal. A right to live free from crime and violence, rather than exposure to daily violence, protect by some freedom clause written 300 years ago. There is a reason why no other developed country has adopted the US constitution. After all, it's not patented.

Where has there been a mandate for all towns to have a gun shop?, Fail, your comparing apples to oranges so you can continue to piss and moan about america.

[Heracles 417]

people sure come up with some silly ideas about what they have a right to.

Like Guns? Or freedom to literally say or do anything, without any consequences? I know what you mean. What sort of developed first word country has such stupid laws?

I think you will find first world countries tend to legislate things that actually improve people's lives. Like a right to a fair minimum wage. A right to adequate vacation time and safe working conditions. A right to be compensated if you are retrenched. A right to a fair dismissal. A right to live free from crime and violence, rather than exposure to daily violence, protect by some freedom clause written 300 years ago. There is a reason why no other developed country has adopted the US constitution. After all, it's not patented.

Where has there been a mandate for all towns to have a gun shop?, Fail, your comparing apples to oranges so you can continue to piss and moan about america.

You missed the point. While Americans hold the US Constitution dear to their hearts, many most abroad don't have the same things legislated nor care to. They prefer to legislate things that actually improve the living conditions in a country. Like the conditions I stated above. Obviously for many here, legislating such things are bizarre.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Booyah!

[_Simpson_ 250]

As MC would say "only in America Europe" I am amazed that people think its ok to make laws that would force business to perform services. What should of happened, with the support of the people the gov. should of offered to pay for the expenses that would give access to every citizen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would be very surprised if the government didn't pay the telecoms companies directly or otherwise offer some sort of incentive or subsidy to do this. That's usually how these things work.

[Heracles 417]

As MC would say "only in America Europe" I am amazed that people think its ok to make laws that would force business to perform services. What should of happened, with the support of the people the gov. should of offered to pay for the expenses that would give access to every citizen.

Damn straight they should be forced. You must have missed my comcast thread. Government intervention is why we don't get ripped off in Europe or Australia. I have seen and used both systems (approaches) and government intervention to promote the free-market works 1,000 times better than the Repub / Libertarian let companies do as they please approach. For example, it's why we don't have incoming call charges in Europe or Australia. It's why we have a handful of broadband providers, rather than one. It's why the sticker price on a shelf is what we pay at the register. It's why a $49.95 cell bill means I only pay $49.95.

Common sense: monopolies will abuse their market share. Something that is clearly happening here. The independent Australian competition board [ACCC] forced the incumbent telecoms to allow others to use their exchanges and copper lines, and actually set a reasonable rate. Hence the competition and a win for the Australian consumer. You know, the same person the government and Constitution protects and represents.