@Tengeng: This might all be true, although I personally doubt it. But again, to me the actual cost or speed is only marginally important compared to the acknowledgement that internet access is a right.

TanGeng

Sanya12364 Posts

October 15 2009 14:16 GMT

#43

On October 15 2009 22:52 RoyW wrote:
"The cost of utilities should be higher to reflect the fact that people shouldn't be living there if they want to remain connected to society."

What? Why? It's a geographic political area that formed into a country long ago. Why should they have to pay more.

It's like charging them extra tax for the fire department or police because they live further away.

"I have to say that the Finnish government's use of "right to internet access" is the most naive and stupid invocation of "right" possible. It's is so indicative of nanny governments around the world to be so arrogant as to set people's priorities on spending money for them. It isn't that people will have the right to choose to get broadband, but rather the government will get broadband for them whether they want it or not."

Haha, hmm, let's look at scandanavia and it's nanny governments.
Hmm, let's look at America and it's poisoned-since-mccarthyism view of socialised policies

America is poisoned by its military tradition.
Scandinavia is not being help by its nanny government.
Both are quite rotten.

As for relative cost of broadband, you seriously think that all of them should get the same exact service? What if the country needed to bring broadband to the 2 people living on the edge of the arctic ocean at great cost? What if at the same price the country could improve its broadband network to doctor's clinics such that the other 5 million people now have the option of having appointments with their doctors at home? Is that a trade off that people are willing to make?

The proper analogy for the police and fire station is whether or not the government should build and staff stations to service 20 people that lives 50 miles away from all other living souls.

zatic

Zurich15366 Posts

October 15 2009 14:22 GMT

#44

No, his analogy was perfectly fine. It's just as much distinctive of a nanny state to provide a fire station in a remote area. What if you could buy 10 extra rescue helicopters for that in a populated area? Some draw the line at fire stations, others at internet access.

RoyW

Ireland270 Posts

October 15 2009 14:37 GMT

#45

"What if the country needed to bring broadband to the 2 people living on the edge of the arctic ocean at great cost?"

"What if the country needed to bring medical assistance to the 2 people living on the edge of the arctic ocean at great cost?"

The argument isn't about the how far away people are, it's about whether the government should deem broadband as something it's willing to provide it's people. If you agree with that then the relatively larger costs for doing so in some areas is irrelevant.

"What if at the same price the country could improve its broadband network to doctor's clinics such that the other 5 million people now have the option of having appointments with their doctors at home? Is that a trade off that people are willing to make?"

You're pulling that either/or out of your ass. The broadband isn't being implemented at the expense of your wonderfully constructed hypothetical. It's as ridiculous as me saying 'it's better to spend the money on this than limos for government people' and using that as an argument for its implementation.

And to call Scandanavia rotten is ridiuclous. I have only been to Sweden, but I can honestly say that Stockholm is by far the best city I have ever visisted. Except the nightlife, which was pretty average.

FragKrag

United States11566 Posts

October 15 2009 14:55 GMT

#46

the simple solution is to accelerate global warming so that the climate in Finland is not as terrible as it is now.

Liquid`Drone

Norway28811 Posts

October 15 2009 15:07 GMT

#47

scandinavian countries all have more or less official policy that we want rural areas populated and therefore we spend more money on average on each person living in rural areas than on each person in cities or urban areas.. it's absolutely necessary to combat centralization and urbanization, saying that "these people should have been aware of this before they moved there" is ridiculous - most people who live in rural areas were born there.

and scandinavia is greatly helped by its "nanny government" and scandinavians are more positively inclined towards politicians than any other people.. describing scandinavia as rotten shows a complete lack of understanding of either the world or scandinavia, or a strong desire to utter redundant phrases (as the only way you can legitimately make the claim that scandinavia is rotten, is if you consider the entire world rotten. )

Velr

Switzerland10905 Posts

October 15 2009 15:17 GMT

#48

But your all socialist devils!!! You have to be much poorer and unhappier than the super capitalists, else some world views shatter...

The Scandinavian countries are probably the best places to live for the average citizen in the world... Nannystate? Seems to work just fine.

RoyW

Ireland270 Posts

October 15 2009 15:22 GMT

#49

Works wonderfully. You have an on average more educated, responsible, and gernally pleasant populace than pretty much anywhere else in the world.

Integra

Sweden5626 Posts

October 15 2009 15:35 GMT

#50

Yea, but you have to take into consideration that a large percentage of the Scandinavians are atheists. In Sweden alone 75 to 85 % are atheists or agnostics. The other 15% is a combination of Christians, Wiccas and satanic worshippers where the Christians are the smallest religious group and Satanic worshipper are the biggest group. So we are probably going to hell.

Manit0u

Poland17768 Posts

October 15 2009 15:35 GMT

#51

On October 15 2009 20:41 lazz wrote:
why are northern european countries so fucking awesome? im seriously considering moving there later in life. although the weather is kinda dreary, but I kinda like that.

Well, they might seem this way. But ABBA had to move out from there because they had to pay over 100% taxes

Socialist countries can be great, but they have their downsides too (like in the example above, taxes in Sweden and Norway - not sure about Finland and other countries there - can reach horrendeous proportions).

Also, some interesting stuff:

However, despite Bruegel, distorted academic studies and the European media’s praise, the efficiency of the major Scandinavian economies is a myth. The Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going through a long period of decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually bankrupt. Between 1990 and 1995 unemployment increased five-fold. The Scandinavian countries have not been able to recover.

Source: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Europeans and Scandinavians work approximately 1500 hours per employed person per year compared to the American figure of about 1850. In the year 2000, the employment to population ratio in Scandinavia is approximately 0.70, which is the same as in the U.S. Europe has an employment to population ratio of only 0.60 in 2000. We can see Scandinavia’s similarity to the U.S. workforce occurs mostly on the extensive margin. Yet, Scandinavia has the highest tax rates while the United States has the lowest.

Integra

Sweden5626 Posts

October 15 2009 15:41 GMT

#52

OVER 100%? So if they made 100 million they had to pay 101 millions, yea that makes sense...

cascades

Singapore6122 Posts

October 15 2009 15:43 GMT

#53

The guaranteed 1mb line is pretty basic and okay. I agree with the posters that mention that those without an internet connection are being left behind in the internet revolution. The 100mb line seems like overkill though. It distorts the market.

Liquid`Drone

Norway28811 Posts

October 15 2009 15:47 GMT

#54

taxes in norway do not reach horrendous proportions. they're actually significantly higher in denmark (and denmark is not ruled by a socialist government. )

Manit0u

Poland17768 Posts

October 15 2009 15:49 GMT

#55

On October 16 2009 00:41 Integra wrote:
OVER 100%? So if they made 100 million they had to pay 101 millions, yea that makes sense...

It was more like 160%

The more you earn, the more you have to pay up + there's additional taxes for various things and they can total to more than you actually earn. I know it's dumb, but that's the reality.

It's a bit similar in Poland but not to this proportions. Basing on what you earn you have to pay:

In 2008:
> : <=
N/A : 44 490 : 19% minus 586.85
44 490 : 85 528 : 7866.25 + 30% of what you get over 44 490
85 528 : N/A: 20 177.65 + 40% of what you get over 85 528

In 2009:
> : <=
N/A : 85 528 : 18% minus 556.02
85 528 : N/A: 14 839.02 + 32% of what you get over 85 528

@Drone: Well, I wasn't talking about the usual everyday person. But rich people can be troubled by that as they feel it more.

Edit: Made it more readable.

Liquid`Drone

Norway28811 Posts

October 15 2009 15:56 GMT

#56

rich people are not troubled by paying 40% instead of 30% of their income in taxes. that is absolute bullshit.

and taxes in scandinavia will _never_ amount to more than your total earnings.

Integra

Sweden5626 Posts

October 15 2009 15:57 GMT

#57

That's funny I always thougth the tax rate was the same regardless of how much money you made.

Zavior

Finland753 Posts

October 15 2009 16:13 GMT

#58

While it is true that the taxes are higher in scandinavian countries, you get a lot back for it. Free dental healthcare until you are 18, very high quality of education, every person living in finland gets free health insurance as a part of their social security.. So yeah, higher taxes, but a lot of things you would have to pay for in other countries are free here.

Manit0u

Poland17768 Posts

October 15 2009 16:31 GMT

#59

On October 16 2009 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
rich people are not troubled by paying 40% instead of 30% of their income in taxes. that is absolute bullshit.

and taxes in scandinavia will _never_ amount to more than your total earnings.

Rich people are quite often troubled with this. After all it can make a difference if you earn 600 or 700k after the taxes. No? With higher numbers the disparity is even worse, that's why so many rich people hide their income or try to generate it in "tax heavens".