EPTI've long believed that e-infrastructure is something best handled at a national level. It requires significant investment and planning, both of which the free market is unwilling to provide. I'm glad the Finns agree with me.
Broadband soon to be a legal right in Finland - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States43352 Posts
I've long believed that e-infrastructure is something best handled at a national level. It requires significant investment and planning, both of which the free market is unwilling to provide. I'm glad the Finns agree with me. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28727 Posts
On October 16 2009 01:31 Manit0u wrote: 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". if you make 600k instead of 700k because of taxes you are not troubled by the increase of tax. this notion is what I consider bullshit. I think if you make 40k instead of 50k because of taxes, this is way more troublesome. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
I don't want to get into a giant debate on how government intervention decreases productivity where I would have to do a lot of research and make plenty of links to historical examples and become a walking encyclopedia, and where I would have to use said research to support my predictions of the future which could not be proven anyways since it's a hypothetical situation. So I will just put forward this elementary principle that we all know from playground interactions, but for some reason seem to forget when we get older. Taking stuff from people and then deciding for them where the stuff should go is wrong. Thats all there is to it. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On October 16 2009 02:00 Railxp wrote: So I will just put forward this elementary principle that we all know from playground interactions, but for some reason seem to forget when we get older. Taking stuff from people and then deciding for them where the stuff should go is wrong. Thats all there is to it. Only difference is that this isn't the playground, and you aren't taking anything from anyone they do it by their own free will. And finally it's the people that are paying tax that decides where it should go! Besides that your analogy was spot on! | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Could this have any repercussions in regards to the future of net neutrality in Finland? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On October 16 2009 02:00 Railxp wrote: ITS. NOT. FREE. Basically you're forking over a large sum of money, and they take it a chunk of that money and pay employees, and then take a fraction of what you used to have and spend that on internet. And then they wrap it up in pretty gift wrap and tell you "HERE! THIS IS YOUR RIGHT!" as a surprise present. And then just as little kids on xmas day we cheer and jump with joy. I don't want to get into a giant debate on how government intervention decreases productivity where I would have to do a lot of research and make plenty of links to historical examples and become a walking encyclopedia, and where I would have to use said research to support my predictions of the future which could not be proven anyways since it's a hypothetical situation. So I will just put forward this elementary principle that we all know from playground interactions, but for some reason seem to forget when we get older. Taking stuff from people and then deciding for them where the stuff should go is wrong. Thats all there is to it. So it's wrong for children of various wealth classes to have equal opportunities? | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On October 16 2009 02:22 travis wrote: So then internet service is government provided? Could this have any repercussions in regards to the future of net neutrality in Finland? No, the government simply lay down rules that private owned companies must follow if they want to conduct business. These rules will only impact the quality and availability of the service and nothing else. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On October 16 2009 02:28 Integra wrote: No, the government simply lay down rules that private owned companies must follow if they want to conduct business. These rules will only impact the quality and availability of the service and nothing else. ok, but so before, internet was paid for privately? but now it is paid for by the government? or was it paid for government before too and this is just a change in policy? (which would make me wonder what the policy was before) | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
Zavior
Finland753 Posts
On October 16 2009 02:30 travis wrote: ok, but so before, internet was paid for privately? but now it is paid for by the government? or was it paid for government before too and this is just a change in policy? (which would make me wonder what the policy was before) I believe you will still pay for it privately, the government will just encourage the ISP's to enlarge the infrastructure to cover more areas with broadband. There are not many places in finland you currently cant get broadband though. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
Random Finn on Reddit In exchange for the right to use public radio frequencies, and local phone utility monopoly licenses, the companies must now commit to providing a basic level of affordable service to everyone in the area covered by the monopoly license. These companies would want to only provide service in areas which offer them the best profit margins, leaving less densely populated areas without service. Since all of the residents living in a monopoly license area are contributing equally by ceding a part of their freedom to associate in communally creating a monopoly license, all of the residents must also receive such a share of the network benefits as they have chosen to embrace through their choice of abode. Some choose to live in densely populated places where they can share the cost of infrastructure to a high degree, and some choose to live elsewhere, and those choices are reflected in the relatively low level of bandwidth that was deemed to be a basic right. | ||
|
RoyW
Ireland270 Posts
On October 16 2009 00:57 Integra wrote: That's funny I always thougth the tax rate was the same regardless of how much money you made. No, most countries have a proportionate tax system where the % rises the more you earn. Generally this helps limit the increase-tendency between the rich and the poor. I think the Top tax bracket in Reagan's(or maybe pres before him) time was 70%, though I could be wrong. In Ireland we have a relatively low 21% up until roughly 50k(there is an over-complicated tax-credit system), after which we get charged at 40% I believe in Sweden it's around 30%, and top bracket goes 52 or something after a certain point, but I can't remember. | ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
NETIKKA DSL 1M/512 31,90 €/month ($47.65) NETIKKA DSL 2M/512 39,90 €/month ($59.59) NETIKKA DSL 4M/832 43,00 €/month ($64.22) So its not free those who wonder how much costs 1M connection, where I live. Of course other companies has different monthly fees. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 16 2009 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: if you make 600k instead of 700k because of taxes you are not troubled by the increase of tax. this notion is what I consider bullshit. I think if you make 40k instead of 50k because of taxes, this is way more troublesome. The rich (read: productive) are quite untroubled by higher taxes. Largely they make the decision to work less. So someone that would have grossed 300k would choose to put in 250k or maybe 200k. Not too much point in working hard if the government just takes most of it away. The highly productive can't hide their work related income in a tax haven. Instead it's the wealthy that seek tax havens. They're investing money and look for good returns - which taxes take a huge chunk out of. This isn't a huge problem that the highly productive work a lot less, is it? All that does is create less employment opportunities and reduce the earning potential of less productive people. That outcome doesn't bother your unemployed at all never mind your 40k per year earner. You might even see all your productive people leave the country! Now there's progress. | ||
|
Ingenol
United States1328 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 16 2009 03:30 Too_MuchZerg wrote: NETIKKA DSL 512/512 27,90 €/month ($41.52) NETIKKA DSL 1M/512 31,90 €/month ($47.65) NETIKKA DSL 2M/512 39,90 €/month ($59.59) NETIKKA DSL 4M/832 43,00 €/month ($64.22) So its not free those who wonder how much costs 1M connection, where I live. Of course other companies has different monthly fees. How is it so expensive in Finland?? What are the over-subscription ratios of these companies? That's ridiculous even if they declare broadband to be some kind of "right." I can get 30/6 for $60. So do you mind if I just ask? If you still have to pay for broadband, but broadband is some kind of "right," then it's basically the government telling ISPs that they have to service everyone no matter where they live even if they live 50 km away from any other living souls. Is that right? It just sounds like they are setting up a mandate where all the rural areas have to be serviced. My guess is that everyone living in the denser city/suburbs will get to subsidize the really sparsely populated northern half of the country. Gotta be happy about that. | ||
|
Zavior
Finland753 Posts
On October 16 2009 03:30 Too_MuchZerg wrote: NETIKKA DSL 512/512 27,90 €/month ($41.52) NETIKKA DSL 1M/512 31,90 €/month ($47.65) NETIKKA DSL 2M/512 39,90 €/month ($59.59) NETIKKA DSL 4M/832 43,00 €/month ($64.22) So its not free those who wonder how much costs 1M connection, where I live. Of course other companies has different monthly fees. Yeah, it differs quite a bit between ISP's. For example, our 10/10mb connection has a monthly fee of 38€. I'd say Netikka is the most expensive ISP I've heard of  | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On October 16 2009 03:37 travis wrote: I guess they are saying that internet access is a legal right, so ISP's can't deny you access. So in a way, it's a net neutrality issue. How can this be a neutrality issue? I mean they can still deny anyone access with good enough reason, like if the customer demands a speed that they cannot deliver or that the customer can't pay for (they have to pick a slower speed but refuse and therefore they get nothing) or they brake a law that forfeits the right to own a connection. | ||
| ||
