Finland First to Make Broadband a Legal Right

[Peikko 1,575]

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

Like guns?

like broadband is mentioned in the constitution?

Good thing the Constitution was written after the advent of the firearm, no?

Funny thing, how something as fundamental as rights are a function of when the Constitution was written

They are not like you and me A.J.

Ok.

I errored, I thought it was you that posted the article.

[almaty 19]

Finland is correct..

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

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

Like guns?

like broadband is mentioned in the constitution?

Good thing the Constitution was written after the advent of the firearm, no?

and before the invention of nuclear weapons, eh?

What a shame, they missed the chance to stick the suitcase nuke into the Second Amendment.

ergo, you missed your chance for some respect.......

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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

Like guns?

like broadband is mentioned in the constitution?

Good thing the Constitution was written after the advent of the firearm, no?

and before the invention of nuclear weapons, eh?

What a shame, they missed the chance to stick the suitcase nuke into the Second Amendment.

ergo, you missed your chance for some respect.......

?

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

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

Like guns?

like broadband is mentioned in the constitution?

Good thing the Constitution was written after the advent of the firearm, no?

and before the invention of nuclear weapons, eh?

What a shame, they missed the chance to stick the suitcase nuke into the Second Amendment.

ergo, you missed your chance for some respect.......

?

to be a nuclear power! just imagine how that would make job reviews go when you have your very own suitcase nuke!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Here's how BusinessWeek put it:

The move could pave the way for other countries to start looking at broadband as its citizens’ inalienable legal right, akin to freedom of speech and freedom of movement. That makes a lot of sense: Most of us can no longer perform our work duties, do homework or communicate with friends without having access to the Internet. Many Web-based communications and video services, such as Skype, require a broadband connection to work. People need broadband connections to live normal lives, as Finland is the first nation to acknowledge.

BusinessWeek - that ole' Communist rag.

[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 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.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Booyah!

[scandal 951]

BusinessWeek - that ole' Communist rag.

Apropos ---- Bloomberg is buying BusinessWeek for a measly $5million.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0362516084.html

[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.

[SMR 368]

Actually, in America, we also have a right to have broadband. A one-megabit connection costs about $17.99 a month. But anybody can get it. A right to something in America means that the government is not allowed to stop you from getting it. It doesn't mean that anyone has to provide it to you.

Just like the government doesn't give you guns. We have the right to bear arms. But you have to buy your own guns. We have freedom of the press, but you have to print your own newspaper. We have freedom of religion, but you have to build your own church. We have freedom of speech, but you have to buy your own airtime.

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.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Hmmm. Well it makes sense in relation to improving the telecommunications infrastructure - I guess there are still areas where people are on dial-up because broadband isn't offered where they live.

Used to be the same with cell phones - rural regions were unconnected not because demand was lacking but because population density didn't make it as profitable.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

http://www.wildblue.com/

there, that should make everyone happy.

[SMR 368]

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.

Well, I don't see why a government mandate is necessary. I'm sure that any broadband company will be happy to provide internet to anyone that wants it. It's really just a matter of cost. If you live on a reindeer ranch in the arctic mountains of Finland, you may have to pay for the lines and repeater stations to get broadband. But that seems reasonable. If you wanted cheap broadband, you should have lived in Helsinki.

If the government doesn't dictate the cost of the service, than it really is meaningless. Anywhere the company doesn't want to provide service, it will just quote an insanely high price. If the government is dictating prices, then I really do consider that a violation of the free market. It can't really be compared to slavery since a company can just close.

[mRx 16]

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!