Broadband soon to be a legal right in Finland - Page 8

On October 16 2009 07:13 Doctorasul wrote:Not everything is black and white, America. Sometimes socialism works - live with it. You can argue the scandinavians are a rare exception, or that they have other qualities that counteract the evils or incompetence of their government, whatever. But you can't deny simple reality: there is a place in the world where socialism works, and damn well. You guys would be a lot more convincing if you'd at least acknowledge that much.

On October 17 2009 02:36 uiCk wrote:
im sure they have examined the costs, and am sure they found the counter weight which is why they went with the idea... all your doing is spilling your economic point of view which does not take any other variables in this equation except for initial cost. all other argument from you is speculation about the gouverments ability to cope with this issue which believe me, im sure they have looked it over with more specifics then some dude on TL applying an economic ideal towards any given situation. (i can see your argumentation being used identically to any other subject like health care, energy, education etc.)

On October 15 2009 20:30 29 fps wrote:
is it gonna be free? or will you have to pay some broadband tax?

On October 17 2009 03:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry but my impression of rural america is entirely built from american tv series and movies, I have never been there
something that has struck me though, is that it always looks so.. poor and unkempt. this might just be something perpetuated through media, but it is incredibly consistent - I can't even recall seeing a house supposed to be on the american countryside which looked wealthy.

it's not like that here. rural areas are just as wealthy and the houses there do not look like they are about to collapse. they have good internet, good schools (better than in cities actually), and while there is certainly a problem that young people move away from the countryside to live in cities, it's not something they have to do here. generally people move into the cities to go to university / college, then some move back when they get kids and some do not..

however at least to me, it is obvious that this will not happen without some form of subsidizing, because it will be economically unsound to invest in the countryside where there are significantly less people to purchase a product.. do you think it is possible to get a thriving, populated countryside without government intervention or is it just something you don't care much for?

On October 17 2009 03:03 TanGeng wrote:


I've already examined it from various value positions. If you like promotion of rural lifestyle. It's perfectly fine but nothing special. From the value position of creating the best broadband infrastructure, it will be counterproductive, so it fails. It's might make you feel good about declaring broadband a right, but it's better to understand the costs before engaging in frivolous masturbation. I also recognize that there is great value to providing people a feeling of well-being even if it's very temporary. Is there some other value position I have missed? It's also possible to combine all three. Just balance whatever you feel more strongly about.

I've at least provided some idea of how the money and the economics will flow based on this law. Initial investment will be the capital investment. Primary indication of derived benefits will be how much people will be willing to pay for broadband subscriptions. External derived benefits will include the composition and distribution of population in society (the value position of promoting rural lifestyle).

I will analyze health care, energy, education with the same rigor. You on the other hand have provided nothing constructive. It's all empty emotional indignation as if that could win the argument for you. In addition, you hold a blind trust in these government officials. But it's sorely misplaced. They are as human and selfish as those out in the business world. They will look out for themselves, do anything to get re-elected, and take bribes and engage in corruption when the cut is large enough.

On October 17 2009 03:37 uiCk wrote:



your still labeling the product as bad, because it is not idealy the best product, wich in this case is not the point. though i do respect and understand your view on how to accomplish the best product, this is case its about who should get the product, wethere its the best or not.

for example i have an internet connection were my dl's never surpass 200kb/sec, though the product might seem like crap to most people here in canada, i am one of few that has no cap on how much i download, thus the product is WAY better even though its efficiency is very poor.
Different perceptions.

On October 17 2009 02:23 Phrujbaz wrote:
You are lumping together two fundamentally different issues. One is socialization of internet which is immensely controversial, and the other is a universally agreed upon human right. By confusing a legal entitlement with a right, you are pushing socialism under false pretences. This is the moral corruption that I was talking about. Surely few freedom-minded people will argue that a negative right to internet is a bad thing.

On October 17 2009 19:27 zatic wrote:

WTF are you talking about, seriously? I am the only one in this thread who tries to get the discussion away from Internet access supposedly being an entitlement towards it being a legal right, which is how I understand what the Fins are doing. I am not confusing anything. At the very start of this thread I said the thread is going in the wrong direction -> entitlement of internet access and nationalization and the so fucking boring discussion about socialism vs free market we had a few hundreds times already. I wish it wouldn't have. Bigger picture people.