Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right (2009)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html

by dgudkov • 14 years ago

104 70 14 years ago

news.cnet.com

TomGullen• 14 years ago

1MB as a legal right seems a little dubious, 100MB as a legal right seems even more dubious.

I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB connection offer over a 1MB connection?

You can enjoy engage and benefit from the vast majority of important stuff on the Internet with a 250kb connection.

elithrar• 14 years ago

> I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB connection offer over a 1MB connection?

It's a marketing/political thing. Most users think that a fatter pipe == faster connection, when of course we know that's not the case. Heck, most of the time when you hit higher port speeds it's a case of the content server on the other end not being able to saturate your 100Mbit pipe anyway!

Governments promise these "minimum" speeds or "universal access" as an attempt to appear in touch with technology.

For context, the Government here in Australia has started rolling out a national fibre network (National Broadband Network; NBN), with tiered port speeds of 12/25/50/100Mbps. It's going to be a shock to many (and ISP's are going to bear the brunt of the complaints) when people realise their 50Mbit connection isn't going to give them 5-6MB/s throughput from any/every source.

GlennS• 14 years ago

I've had 50Mb/s for a few years now (UK). It doesn't protect your from network screw-ups, packet-loss or high latency, but it can still be really nice to have.

It opens up the possibility of 'What shall we watch tonight? Oh we don't have that yet? I'll just grab it now. Should be done in ten minutes.' Most digital distribution services seem able to handle uploading that fast these days.

So the main uses are downloading of videos and computer games. Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient.

zxoq• 14 years ago

Most people don't know that 50 mbit is 6 MB/s anyways. So there should be no issue. The main gain is that higher speeds allows new services (like HDTV over the pipe) and makes content more accessible. I got a 1 gbit home connection and it's great being able to download games off Steam or Origin (which is the only services besides torrents that come close to saturating the line) in 2-3 minutes.

My parents have a 100 mbit connection and the only demanding thing they use it for is watching digital TV and sports online, and the reality is a high quality HDTV stream uses up 10-20 mbit, and if you got 3 TVs (or just a TiVo that eats 4 streams on it's own) that mandates a 50 mbit connection at least.

SamReidHughes• 14 years ago

It's 1 Mb not 1 MB.

dsrguru• 14 years ago

While it bugs me, I understand that from an ISP's point of view, it makes sense to use whatever plausible-ish unit will let you post the highest number, even if that unit is way less practical for thinking in (any download large enough to be affected by connection speed is going to be thought of by the person downloading in terms of bytes, not bits). Also, if an ISP doesn't do that, everyone else will, and they'll be the loser in a prisoner's dilemma. However, what really bugs me is when third parties (e.g. the Finish government) perpetuate the inferior standard, which arose as a marketing ploy, for no apparent reason other than maybe ignorance. It's bad enough that we still don't really use the metric system outside of science in the United States, and it's cost us a fair amount of money in incorrect conversions. However, with MBps and Mbps, most laypeople and possibly some Finish government officials don't even realize that there are two systems, one of which is almost an order of magnitude larger.

rmc• 14 years ago

You can enjoy engage and benefit from the vast majority of important stuff on the Internet with a 250kb connection.

No not really. Streaming videos down, or streaming videos up (i.e. video chat) is harder at low speeds like that. With 250kb/sec you can consume textual content easier.

xtiy• 14 years ago

The voice of the people will be heard.

darksaga• 14 years ago

Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in roughly the same sq mile area.

Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.

hartror• 14 years ago

Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper . . .

waterlesscloud5• 14 years ago

It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.

Tuna-Fish• 14 years ago

A very important point is that while Finland has an area of 330K km^2, almost all of the population is concentrated on the coasts and a few in-land cities. You can probably get 95% penetration with less than 30K km^2 coverage. The rest will likely be served with wireless broadband.

crazy1van3• 14 years ago

Calling access to a consumer good a "right" really cheapens the concept.

The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.

a_bonobo• 14 years ago

Have you read the article?

>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second."

That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people.

What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept?

From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)

crazy1van3• 14 years ago

>Have you read the article? >>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second." >That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people.

That's why I said access to a consumer good and nothing about who pays. That said, as far as I can tell, there isn't a western democracy that forbids their people from buying internet access. So if this doesn't have anything to do with assisting people to pay for it and they aren't banned from buying it themselves, what does it do?

In reality this does have to do with assisting them to pay for it, because mandating construction of broadband connections is just a roundabout way of helping pay for it.

>What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? >From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)

This is exactly what I mean. You are comparing getting internet access to getting food and water. If you don't have food and water, you die. If you don't have internet access, then yes you don't have access to the best, most modern way to communicate. However, in a nation with free speech you have access to many other ways to express yourself. I'm sure resourceful people will find ways to exercise that right without mandating some telco run fiber to within 2km of their house.

Gormo2• 14 years ago

Access to food and water are can be recognized as rights in the same way we recognize the right to free speech as a right, i.e. that you may not be prevented from pursuing the object of that right by law or policy.

The right to food means that you may not be artificially constrained from growing and producing food for yourself by your own means. It doesn't mean that anyone's obligated to give you free food; the UN's concept of rights, as implied by the linked Wikipedia article, is simply wrong. How can you have a right that can only be invoked by the action of third parties?

Having a right and possessing the object of that right are two entirely different things.

Natsu2• 14 years ago

It is becoming more and more necessary over time. Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable.

Questions of "rights" devolve into discussions of fairness with each person asserting that their sense of justice is the one that society ought to satisfy. It makes more sense to examine an issue like this from a perspective of utility: the internet is incredibly useful for education and communication, both of which benefit society.

paulhauggis• 14 years ago

"Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable."

There are public libraries in nearly every city with free Internet access.

Gormo2• 14 years ago

> It is becoming more and more necessary over time. Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable.

It's entirely worthwhile to pursue goals like maximizing the availability of internet access for as many people is feasible and practicable. But putting this pursuit on the same level as fundamental rights - which inhere in every individual irrespective of any external infrastructure or institutions - does indeed dilute the concept of rights.

nextparadigms• 14 years ago

"The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press."

So why can't that change if it's easy and cheap enough to do it for every citizen, seeing how it's so important for a person's freedom of speech?

crazy1van3• 14 years ago

Might be a perfectly good idea to help citizens get access to better internet. However, I don't see why that should make it a right.

A right to me is a powerful thing. It is something that the government or others cannot take from you, no matter what. Eg, free speech - no person or government can compel you to not express your opinion. Or, freedom of religion - no person or government can compel to believe in a certain deity.

Consider this, things are relatively good in the western world right now in a grand historic sense. So governments have the ability to bestow "rights" like access to broadband. But what if things get really bad financially and the government and telcos of the nation can no longer afford to maintain broadband access to all citizens? Suddenly the government is forced to revoke a right because it is broke. I contend that if that can happen, it probably wasn't a right in the first place. Now, free speech on the other hand is something that will never have to be revoked no matter the financial status of a nation. That to me is truly a right. It is the difference between promising a person a printing press and promising a person that he may print whatever he wants on his own printing press.

batista• 14 years ago

>The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.

Well, it should. Either that, or access to one.

Because else, people have the right to free speech, but no way to be heard, whereas a tiny minority controls the media, and their's is the only speech that matters.

Giving actual resources and physical dimensions to a right doesn't cheapen it, it makes it more concrete.

What some people don't understand is that the "right to free speech" wasn't about idly talking in your house, it was about the right to make political statements on the issues of the day AND be heard by your community. That was far easier when the concept was established of course, where communities and cities were far smaller and knit together.

Free speech between friends or in your house is BS, even the worst dictatorships had that.

vegardx• 14 years ago

I think most people read too much into the speeds. What they are acutally saying is that you now have a legal right to get a decent-ish connection at any place in Finland. And this should be a right in any modern country, as so many things revolve around having access to the Internet.

Example: In Norway we do our tax returns, apply for school, read up on information about your properties, etc. You basically have to have access to Internet.

glaze5• 14 years ago

This cannot be implemented without violating property rights, so it's morally wrong. The state should protect people's rights, not take them away.

AlisdairO7• 14 years ago

Maybe the Finns have a different idea of what makes a good society than you?

glaze5• 14 years ago

As a Finn, I don't like the idea that other people can vote to take away some individual's rights, in this case, ISP's.

pimeys• 14 years ago

I still remember the fiasco of spending lots of tax money to build a DVB television network. They were talking a lot of having a "callback channel" in those set-top boxes and lots of interaction in TV programs.

Well, we had expensive television network while Sweden spent the same money for better Internet connections.

Juha• 14 years ago

I think defining broadband access like this allows them to move certain legally required things to the internet age. I believe there are a lot of small laws in Finland that say what the radio channel, newspaper or Tv channel should provide. For example we actually have a law that during icehockey World Championships our own matches should be broadcasted for free.

If enough people legally have access to a broadband internet, its easier to make laws to offering certain services through the internet (certain information delivery, services like taxes and maybe voting in the future).

pooriaazimi• 14 years ago

Meanwhile, in my country, regular people can't have anything better than 128kb (it's the law).

troels• 14 years ago

what? where is that?

tommi• 14 years ago

Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran

tigerweeds• 14 years ago

fyi, article is 3 years old

Ras_• 14 years ago

Original article is three years old. Here's two more on the subject, both less than month old. The first one also provides info about the scope of the plan and its implementation (like "Private Roads Act, Highways Act and Rail Tracks Act will be adjusted, so that cables can be placed within the infrastructure in the most economic manner possible overall").

"The Government is to keep the hundred megabit objective to be achieved by 2015, which was set during the election period. By 2015, high-speed 100 Mbit/s broadband connections will be available at no more than two kilometres from all permanent places of residence."

http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122

In this news item, the Finnish Minister of Communications suggests that 10Mb would become the new minimum standard before end of election term in 2015.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+...

Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right (2009)

Related Stories