Applause For Finland: First Country To Make Broadband Access A Legal Right

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/14/applause-for-finland-first-country-to-make-broadband-access-a-legal-right/

by transburgh • 17 years ago

26 62 17 years ago

jrmurad• 17 years ago

What good is broadband access without some kind of computer? Do Finns have a "right" to computers too?

If some Finn chooses to live in a remote area of the country, must he be provided with broadband? By whom? How? Or else what (the provider is forced out of business and won't be providing access to anyone)?

(I haven't read the law in question. Perhaps it answers these questions.)

Why stop with broadband? Providing it will make Internet-geeks "applaud." What other so-called "rights" can we invent which are incumbent upon the action of others? A right to instruments [culture is good]? Musicians might applaud. A right to sports equipment [fitness is good]? Athletes. Etc. Tell me, what's the difference?

amalcon3• 17 years ago

The use of the term "right" is misleading, but I'll chalk it up to politics as usual. This is really just an infrastructure project dressed up to look like a humanitarian bill. It makes a better comparison to the American interstate highway system, or perhaps to a library system, than to a right to trained legal representation.

Radix• 17 years ago

Let me play devil's advocate for the difference between this and your other examples. The difference is that internet is infrastructure. It allows other systems to exist, and allows the government to require citizens to interact with it online. Thus it is most like a postal system, rather than instruments, or sports equipment.

Having said that, I agree with you, and taking into account my above thoughts, I still think it is out of place as I like the positive-negative rights theory.

enra3• 17 years ago

I think is important it's made a legal right so companies or other agents can't take your connection away easily, like the 'Three Strikes Law' is trying to do in France.

Second, it means that service providers are forced to provide somekind of access to all areas. Usually in urban areas this means a broadband and in extreme rural areas somekind of mobile or wireless access.

Third, there is some confusion in TC comments, but this doesn't mean that the connection will be free, just that it has to be available to almost every residence.

Anyway this doesn't change things much in Finland. I think we already have broadband almost everywhere, this just ensures that the situation won't change in the future.

byrneseyeview• 17 years ago

There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else?

Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?

laut2• 17 years ago

So called "positive rights" like that are bad.

If you want broadband and don't want to pay for it, you are basically saying that your neighbors should work as slaves to provide it. In that if they don't, they are violating your right.

Rights should only be negative, i.e. things you have the right for other people not to do to you. Basically protection of your property rights including your own body. No theft, murder, stealing, rape, fraud etc.

Not only do I personally believe positive rights are wrong, they cannot logically be upheld without breaking the negative rights.

wmeredith• 17 years ago

I came here to say this, but you stated it much more eloquently than I could have; thanks.

nobody_nowhere2• 17 years ago

Is freedom of speech a positive right or a negative right, in that sense?

pelle• 17 years ago

The key to understanding negative or positive rights is that it is seen from the point of view of the government.

Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.

laut2• 17 years ago

Freedom of speech is basically an extension of property rights. You didn't violate anyones right just by saying something controversial, so they can't punish you for it.

And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.

bitwize• 17 years ago

Positive rights are obligations on society to give you stuff.

Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something.

Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others).

Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.

ct4ul4u• 17 years ago

While I agree that "positive rights" frequently amount to legally mandated wealth transfer, saying your neighbors must "work as slaves" is a bit extreme. A slave has no choice as to whether they work, what they work on, and how they work.

Personally, I have no problem with the fact that property rights are not absolute (taxation and regulation being the primary inroads). That limitation of the property right results in much that I think is good.

steamer252• 17 years ago

What if nobody opts to work in broadband? How will the "right" be satisfied? You may say that someone would choose to do so but what if they couldn't charge for their services because to do so was denying somebody who couldn't pay their "right". And then you'd probably mention that the government would pay for it. And I'd ask where the government would get the money. The answer, of course, being the tax powers you've already mentioned.

If I'm taxed and a growing portion of my labor is taken to pay for something I don't receive and would not agree to pay for freely, how is it not either slavery or theft? As someone noted on reddit a week or so ago (in reference to social news not politics per se)--the larger the democracy, the larger the oppressed minority.

amalcon3• 17 years ago

The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. For example, the public works department is not allowed to go park a truck in front of your driveway, making it useless. Is the phone company allowed to place a filter on your line, so that you don't get DSL? Is the authors' guild allowed to place guards outside the public library to keep you out? Is the post office allowed to stop checking your mailbox? Note that, if you're in the U.S, all these infrastructures were paid for by your tax dollars.

The only difference is that the status quo is different. It's a purely historical artifact that the phone company has control over your phone line. Should we really be deciding who should control which pieces of infrastructure by looking at historical artifacts?

Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.

mseebach2• 17 years ago

> The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial.

Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights.

Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right.

Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right.

> Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.

Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.

frig• 17 years ago

Pop quiz: what % of the first 10 amendments guarantee positive rights?

sounddust• 17 years ago

Coming from an extremely poor family, I feel fortunate to have been raised in a society that provided the "positive right" to a public education; otherwise I would probably be unemployed or making minimum wage in a gas station right now.

lionhearted6• 17 years ago

I also came from a poor family. I wish public education hadn't existed, because I believe there would have been private teachers to pay by the lesson. I think I'd have learned more and gone further if I'd spent a mix of time helping work for my uncle and paying teachers by the lesson for the classes I thought were really worthwhile.

mrkurt3• 17 years ago

I don't begrudge you your education, but it's worth noting that most private schools (ie: schools that aren't a "positive right") offer need based financial aid.

That's really just a roundabout way of saying: in a rich society, it's feasible to think that you might well have received an education even without a public school system.

natrius5• 17 years ago

There's a difference between rights and things that any sufficiently advanced society should ensure are available for all of its citizens.

parse_tree2• 17 years ago

Very well said.

parse_tree2• 17 years ago

jeepers! Complimenting they guy and I get killed on the down votes??

Tichy2• 17 years ago

In France and the rest of Europe they are discussing laws to shut people off the internet for pirating stuff on the internet. In that light I am not sure if the law in question here is really an obligation - it could just prevent somebodies internet connection being taken, rather than forcing "somebody" to provide.

It depends on the details, I guess. I am also against having support people living in remote areas with my phone bill - they chose to live there themselves, so they should cough up the higher connection costs, or move to a city like everybody else.

req2• 17 years ago

Where do you place rights like access to clean water?

natrius5• 17 years ago

How can you have a right to clean water if there is no clean water near you? Do other people have to come give it to you?

karteek• 17 years ago

A Finnish friend of mine told me: Article forgot to mention that every household will be taxed for around 175€/year; known as TV/Internet Tax. Independently if TV or Internet is used in that household…

nixy• 17 years ago

Will that be the only charge then, or is this in addition to the operator/ISP charges?

enra3• 17 years ago

It's actually known as Media Tax, which is revamped version of the old TV/Radio Tax, where TV owners had to pay about 225€/year.

The tax is used for funding the Finnish Broadcasting Company(YLE) and the tv-infrastructure. Most people opposed the tax, since not everyone watch TV anymore and they're not happy how it's used, for example buying HBO shows and producing soap operas instead of some quality programs like BBC does.

tseabrooks• 17 years ago

This is completely absurd. People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them. Surely, the problem with believing someone has a 'right' to broadband internet access they should also have a right to a computer, or a television, or cable.

gloob• 17 years ago

People should not be given rights that require someone provide something for them.

I read: "People should not be given rights to trial by jury or elections". The former requires that random citizens be selected to give up their time for my sake. The latter requires that random government-types go out of their way to organize the whole bloody thing, which is both extraordinarily expensive and inconvenient. Both "require someone provide something for them". Edit: For that matter, what about universal education, as well?

I know the above is clearly not what you intended. Nonetheless, it follows logically from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify your stance?

Tichy2• 17 years ago

In Germany people have a right to a television. If you are on social welfare and you don't have a TV, the government will buy one for you (afaik). Some sell it for the extra dough.

Maybe it makes sense from the perspective of the government, because they can use TVs to brainwash the masses. But seriously, I think it is an OK move - or it used to be, when TV was more important. These days I would agree that people should be given a computer, as life without internet is severely hampered.

Applause For Finland: First Country To Make Broadband Access A Legal Right

Related Stories