"The Finnish government has done what no other nation has; it has made broadband Internet access a guaranteed legal right of its citizens. According to Finnish news site YLE, The Ministry of Transport and Communications says everyone in the country will be entitled to a guaranteed 1 Mbit connection by next July. This is fascinating, but it's really only half the story.
The real news is that the country considers this just a preliminary stepping stone to a 100 Mbit service guarantee by the end of 2015. According to the story, "Some variation will be allowed, if connectivity can be arranged through mobile phone networks."
Granted, Finland's population is more like a very large city than a country as big as the U.S. There are 5.3 million people residing in Finland, mostly in the south. This would place the country about 30th in the ranking of world cities by population, but it still makes it bigger than any U.S. city save New York. Which begs the question - if Finland can do this, why can't more major U.S. cities?"
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.
Granted, Finland's population is more like a very large city than a country as big as the U.S. There are 5.3 million people residing in Finland, mostly in the south. This would place the country about 30th in the ranking of world cities by population, but it still makes it bigger than any U.S. city save New York. Which begs the question - if Finland can do this, why can't more major U.S. cities?
While I suppose this is a legitimate concern for major US cities, the fact of the matter here is that Finland is able to call upon its national resources in this endeavor, whereas state or city budgets in the US can't reasonably compensate for this kind of major restructuring. While it is funded by taxes, the US seems to have a nasty problem with accepting higher taxation rates even though it is very common in Europe. Even if they could, the money would be much better utilized in aiding the public education or police systems.
"Free" as in just pay more in taxes. Of course the majority of US cities can afford to give its residents broadband. The better question is should they.
By doing so: Government of Finland is setting priority of getting broadband internet for its citizens. It's now an absolute must regardless of what the citizens really though about getting broadband.
Government of Finland is also setting up different levels of wealth transfers, it's either from citizens to the broadband companies or from one citizen to another or a combination of both.
Government of Finland is laying the groundwork for its broadband industry to be insensitive to market demands and replacing it with political demands. The industry won't scale up basic speeds according to capacity and needs. Instead, they will wait for the government bureaucracy to set the standards for them. The government is now footing most of the bill.
It remains to be see what they mean by broadband and how much demand the people of Finland will have in excess of the government guarantee. Maybe in ten years, the government guarantee will be come all but meaningless when demand completely outstrips government guidelines. Then the people of Finland will just be stuck with a stupid tax.
Another problem that US has in comparision is how the internet structure looks like and how much it costs to make vs how it is here, and I assume in finland.
Afaik the digging is alot harder to go through with in alot of the parts of USA, and with the low tax rates and higher prices to make the internet infrastructure possible it's never going to happen.
Dude, congratulations! Sweden currently has the world's 3rd best broadband distribution (after Japan and South Korea), but we'll slip if we don't get another injection like this. I'm real jealous of you guys! Keep pushing the market!
On October 15 2009 20:48 TanGeng wrote: "Free" as in just pay more in taxes. Of course the majority of US cities can afford to give its residents broadband. The better question is should they.
This is just wrong, the taxes doesnt rise, it's a question of where they put their tax money at. Seeing as this is a project aiming to do good in the future, eventually this will help in other areas aswell.
On October 15 2009 20:48 Kyuki wrote: Another problem that US has in comparision is how the internet structure looks like and how much it costs to make vs how it is here, and I assume in finland.
Afaik the digging is alot harder to go through with in alot of the parts of USA, and with the low tax rates and higher prices to make the internet infrastructure possible it's never going to happen.
Most of the cities and local areas have well connected media companies holding monopoly rights over infrastructure for certain types of media distribution. One of the best things that's happened in the US is that telephone companies and cable tv companies have started competing with each other over telephone, digital tv, and broadband services. The prices for really high broadband has come down quite a lot. It just looks like there's plenty of excess capacity.
On October 15 2009 20:48 TanGeng wrote: "Free" as in just pay more in taxes. Of course the majority of US cities can afford to give its residents broadband. The better question is should they.
This is just wrong, the taxes doesnt rise, it's a question of where they put their tax money at. Seeing as this is a project aiming to do good in the future, eventually this will help in other areas aswell.
Sure it does. It's only a matter of when. When the government spends the money. It can either raise taxes now, or raise them later. They can also cut spending somewhere else but that's an independent action with the effect of lowering taxes.
On October 15 2009 20:49 GinNtoniC wrote: Dude, congratulations! Sweden currently has the world's 3rd best broadband distribution (after Japan and South Korea), but we'll slip if we don't get another injection like this. I'm real jealous of you guys! Keep pushing the market!
I don't understand why Sweden hasn't done this as well, The IT growth in Sweden is on pair with the leading countries when it comes to IT structure, we could probably pull it off withinn three years without too much problems.
On October 15 2009 20:49 GinNtoniC wrote: Dude, congratulations! Sweden currently has the world's 3rd best broadband distribution (after Japan and South Korea), but we'll slip if we don't get another injection like this. I'm real jealous of you guys! Keep pushing the market!
I don't understand why Sweden hasn't done this as well, The IT growth in Sweden is on pair with the leading countries when it comes to IT structure, we could probably pull it off withinn three years without too much problems.
You folks in Sweden sound like you're managing just fine without a law mandating broadband. Why meddle with a working system?
On October 15 2009 20:49 GinNtoniC wrote: Dude, congratulations! Sweden currently has the world's 3rd best broadband distribution (after Japan and South Korea), but we'll slip if we don't get another injection like this. I'm real jealous of you guys! Keep pushing the market!
I don't understand why Sweden hasn't done this as well, The IT growth in Sweden is on pair with the leading countries when it comes to IT structure, we could probably pull it off withinn three years without too much problems.
You folks in Sweden sound like you're managing just fine without a law mandating broadband. Why meddle with a working system?
The problem is "fine" if it was a legal right it would go up to excellent.
Afaik Lithuania already has this. This is overdue in so many western countries. If we generally accept that the "real world" infrastructure should be paid for with tax money, why not the internet infrastructure.
More importantly though, this gives citizens a right to sue for internet access. In many ways, you cannot take part in today's society anymore without having internet access. And this trend will continue. Soon you won't be able to handle daily financial, professional or administrative tasks without internet access. It is great to see that some countries take the right direction, and make internet access a citizen's right. Unfortunately there are also countries like France or recently Germany that take to opposite route and discuss or actually implement laws that make it possible to ban people from the internet.
Whether access will be paid for fully or in parts or not at all by taxes is not important compared to allowing the people to enforce their right to access the internet.
At least here in Switzerland the people that want fast broadband already have it (well, at least 99%)... I know no one with ISDN or something old like this and I'm not living in a city... The others that don't want it probably don't need it and wouldn't use it?
It's a great thing but unless your country has free money to spend I don't see how this has priority over anything. Countries which don't have wide broadband access probably couldn't pay this anyway...
I just have to wonder if Finland will enforce this right for the few people who live in the unpopulated northern areas of the country. I'll be pretty expensive to lay fiber all the way up north and maintain all that infrastructure. It doesn't matter how much of a necessity it is for someone to have access to internet. People who live in nearly uninhabited areas should take into the account the high cost or the inaccessibility of utilities when choosing a place to live.
I don't understand why people complain about the status quo only being "fine." The status quo is at best "fine." That's incentive for some provider to come along and make it better. I doubt that it will ever satisfy everyone. Demand will always stay a bit ahead of infrastructure. It'll never be "excellent."
All I can imagine is that people are either complaining about prices or about speeds. A government mandate will never address a problem with speeds since the mandated baseline is probably lower than what people are complaining about. As for price, all it does it hide the costs from the citizens so people don't know what ISPs are charging anymore. That's like sticking the head into the sand and ignoring the possibility that the ISPs could be ripping the entire country off.
I am waiting for that 2015 100MBit broadband thing. Though its going to cost some money (because usually government supports building infrastructure certain % amount). But 5 years, dont know if this going to happen.
On October 15 2009 21:41 TanGeng wrote: I just have to wonder if Finland will enforce this right for the few people who live in the unpopulated northern areas of the country. I'll be pretty expensive to lay fiber all the way up north and maintain all that infrastructure. It doesn't matter how much of a necessity it is for someone to have access to internet. People who live in nearly uninhabited areas should take into the account the high cost or the inaccessibility of utilities when choosing a place to live.
I don't understand why people complain about the status quo only being "fine." The status quo is at best "fine." That's incentive for some provider to come along and make it better. I doubt that it will ever satisfy everyone. Demand will always stay a bit ahead of infrastructure. It'll never be "excellent."
All I can imagine is that people are either complaining about prices or about speeds. A government mandate will never address a problem with speeds since the mandated baseline is probably lower than what people are complaining about. As for price, all it does it hide the costs from the citizens so people don't know what ISPs are charging anymore. That's like sticking the head into the sand and ignoring the possibility that the ISPs could be ripping the entire country off.
Sweden, Finland Denmark and Norway as nations are considered highly advanced, what this means is that allot of the functions that is necessary for the citizen to live in society and manage his or hers daily choirs in the city they live in requires have a computer with a broadband connection.
If they don't they won't be able to things that is considered a legal right for every citizen. The people that lives at least in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway depends on that they have access to the Internet.
This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
This law basically enforces broadband companies to build more infrastructure for their users. Internet cost are usually still pretty high. Nothing is "free".
While this is profound, wonderful, and a huge leap of progress I think it has been overdue. The internet has been as, if not more, necessary than any public utility these days.
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
Wait a second. How hard is it to get internet access? And broadband is more than just basic internet access. I bet people could easily get by with 128kbps.
So is this just simply categorizing internet access as part of basic utilities? Yet the problems associated with living on a remote inaccessible locations remains. 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.
Yet, I still don't understand the rationale for creating a national mandate. What seems to be the issue? Do ISPs have objections with servicing paying clients? What is this "right to internet access?"
On October 15 2009 22:06 TanGeng wrote: What is this "right to internet access?"
What exactly don't you understand? The Finnish people made a legal right to get broadband internet access, it's in the title of this thread.
Hahahahaha.
Finland is such a badass country. I've always wanted to go there. Out of everybody I've ever met on the internet I always seem to get along with Finns the most.
On October 15 2009 22:06 TanGeng wrote: What is this "right to internet access?"
What exactly don't you understand? The Finnish people made a legal right to get broadband internet access, it's in the title of this thread.
So your invocation of "right to internet access" was used in the same sense as how the Finnish government used it.
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.
The mandate will either result in a huge giveaway to ISPs or will be a naked power grab in ISPs market. In a few years, Finland will either have an inefficient or an expensive broadband network. Scandinavian countries have always lead the way because their weather and climate favoured internet communications. Now Finland will get an extra level of government bureaucracy to retard its lead over the rest of the world.
"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
@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.
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.
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.
"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.
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. )
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.
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.
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.
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.
taxes in norway do not reach horrendous proportions. they're actually significantly higher in denmark (and denmark is not ruled by a socialist government. )
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.
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.
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".
Free market absolutely sucks at providing a decent internet service. By packaging it with other stuff and forcing you into contracts they make it extremely difficult to switch provider if you're not happy with your service and they oversubscribe connections to the point that they're unusable at peak times. If you live on the outskirts of a town you won't get a decent connection because it's not cost effective. If you live in a city then you have to try hard to find a provider that won't throttle you at peak times because they can't be bothered to upgrade their infrastructure. 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.
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".
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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 can't speak for Finland but here in Sweden the construction to actually be able to give people the ability to use broadband was sponorsed mostly by the government and parts of it by private companies. The actual service or the internet providers are both from the government (private sector) owned and private business owned (have no ties to the government). My broadband provider is Bredband2 and is a private company.
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.
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.
Like Zavior says the government won't pay for the internet connection. They will only make sure that everyone has the option to buy broadband of at least 1Mbps for an affordable price no matter where they live. The government will not pay for it.
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.
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.
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".
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.
This actually does not beg the question stated in the OP--it begs the question, "Why the fuck does the government have anything to do with internet access?"
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.
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
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.
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
That's more in line. 38€ for 10/10 is more like it. It could be an expensive (read: sparsely populated area) The inaccessibility and the small client base of such areas could force such prices to get a justification of infrastructure.
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.
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".
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.
this has not happened in scandinavia.. in fact if you look at the numbers you will see that norway sweden and denmark all enjoy some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, lower than in usa for example (even prior to the financial crisis). rich people "flagging out"? it has happened, but probably with less than 50 rich norwegians over the past 20 years. it's not a significant problem - and when a rich norwegian merchant a couple months ago threatened with moving to another country to avoid the unbearable norwegian taxes, he even received criticism from other norwegian rich people, whom stated that while they would obviously prefer paying less taxes, they believed in the norwegian model and that it secured wealth, education and stability for the nation and its inhabitants.. even the two right-wing parties in norway, both favouring tax reduction, are strong believers in a mixed economy and do want to maintain the norwegian / scandinavian model.. read as : it works so great that there is no large scale dissent against it - people argue about whether it should be 35 or 33%, but not about whether we should have significant tax-income..
it's not like becoming incredibly wealthy is impossible in norway or sweden or denmark anyway, we have lots of very wealthy people.. and while it is true that people work less hours in scandinavia than in usa, I think this is an incredibly great thing..
The fact that so many people feel triumph at this and joke about moving to Finland brings much sadness to my heart. I wish I could think that all of you guys are trolling, but no. I have to accept the harsh reality that the global economy is getting progressively more socialized, and that this is gaining more and more acceptance in society. Acceptance, perhaps, is an understatement, seeing the feelings of glee and triumph present in this thread.
I feel so helpless, seeing this thread happen. I can only imagine what a young Muslim should think when everybody in the community he is growing up in is crying to commit nonsensical acts of violence. He probably would feel helpless, knowing he can do nothing to stop the tidal wave of evil nonsense that everybody around him is not only accepting but spreading and encouraging.
My objection against glorifying this is threefold. Moral corruption, economic corruption, political corruption.
Moral corruption
3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. 5. Everyone shall have access to 1 mbit of broadband
Doesn't this article five look a little bit odd there? As if, somehow, it seems rather insignificant in comparison to the other rights. Listing it there almost seems a bad joke. It degrades the significance of article three and four. Nobody would take it seriously. The real article five is:
5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Fits quite a bit better, wouldn't you say? To call access to broadband a human right is like blasphemy; offensive and insulting because you are making a mockery out of true human rights.
Nevertheless, many a politician has found support for his valiant efforts at socializing his nation's economy in article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights.
25.1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
How one would mistake article 25. of the universal declaration of human rights with some kind of entitlement is beyond me, but it is apparently easy. Perhaps evidence of the moral corruption that is spreading through society like a plague.
Because that's what this is really about. Some sense of entitlement. Some misplaced sense of justice. Everyone is entitled to 1 mbit of broadband. And if you don't have it, that is an unjust situation and you have the right to force someone to rectify it. We go from suing for theft to suing for broadband.
How very different is this concept of entitlement from the concept of a right where nobody should interfere with you in your pursuit of happiness. How different from, as in article 25, the right to have nobody interfere with your pursuit of a decent standard of living, food, clothing, medical care, etc.
This is about rectifying some perceived injustice in society by transferring, by force (theft if you will), wealth from hard-working people to those that are without. This is about ideas of long dead revolutionists that everyone is entitled to be at least of average wealth, and that we should use any means necessary to bring this "justice" about.
Whether this goal has your sympathy or not, dare not to confuse enforcing your idealist, socialist society on the population, which is an immense political controversy, with universal human rights that no sensible person could disagree about. Don't ever confuse political efforts with human rights.
The reason why Scandinavians work less than USA is because the working force mostly consists of knowledge workers as in we create information and then sell it while USA is more focused on manual working and production labour.
erm, isn't it a very good thing that our society has advanced to the point where we actually take 3, 4 and 5 as so natural and obvious rights that they no longer needs to be in print to be in effect? I mean, lets look at this historically 4000 years ago people essentially had no rights unless they were god-kings or family of such in which case they had whatever right they wanted then 2700 years ago some people decided that more people should get rights and some laws were codified and stuff, in certain areas of the world you would, if you were a free and armed man, be excepted from slavery. then roughly 150 years ago the western world decided that slavery as a whole was barbaric and inhumane. ever since then more and more rights have been included advancing our society further and further.. at least in norway, rights now include right not to have to work more than 37.5 hours a week without being paid overtime right to pursue higher degree education without having wealthy parents capable of securing you with this right to marry regardless of your sexual preference considering internet is integral to being a functioning member of today's society, having access to reasonably high-speed internet is a logical step to make.. there's no point in trying to mock this through pointing out how ridiculous it sounds compared to some of the rights instated 243 years ago - we take hundreds of things today's society guarantee us with for granted, very many of which would have been unthinkable when those rights were formulated on a document..
Yeah, the US did that with telephone utilities way back in the day - mandating telephone lines in the rural farm areas. Since it was such a loser to service the rural areas, the US federal government gave the company (AT&T) monopoly rights over the rest of the country, so it could regain all the losses in the rural areas by overcharging in the cities. Over time, innovation in telephones stagnated because of the monopoly and lack of competition in long distance carriers. I suppose Finland would like to avoid that model, but I don't see how it's possible.
I guess people living in the cities of Finland should expect to pay more and expect a lot less infrastructure investment since the government has prioritized infrastructure investment to service the rural areas. It's a value judgment.
On October 16 2009 04:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: erm, isn't it a very good thing that our society has advanced to the point where we actually take 3, 4 and 5 as so natural and obvious rights that they no longer needs to be in print to be in effect? I mean, lets look at this historically 4000 years ago people essentially had no rights unless they were god-kings or family of such in which case they had whatever right they wanted then 2700 years ago some people decided that more people should get rights and some laws were codified and stuff, in certain areas of the world you would, if you were a free and armed man, be excepted from slavery. then roughly 150 years ago the western world decided that slavery as a whole was barbaric and inhumane. ever since then more and more rights have been included advancing our society further and further.. at least in norway, rights now include right not to have to work more than 37.5 hours a week without being paid overtime right to pursue higher degree education without having wealthy parents capable of securing you with this right to marry regardless of your sexual preference considering internet is integral to being a functioning member of today's society, having access to reasonably high-speed internet is a logical step to make.. there's no point in trying to mock this through pointing out how ridiculous it sounds compared to some of the rights instated 243 years ago - we take hundreds of things today's society guarantee us with for granted, very many of which would have been unthinkable when those rights were formulated on a document..
I'm pretty sure we're still working on life, liberty, and due process. I'm also quite sure we're trying to stamp out human slavery, and still not even close to ending torture, cruel, inhuman punishment.
As for slavery, that was one of the lasting Greek and Roman contributions to western society. It was largely abolished during the Middle Ages and largely not present in tribal France, Germany, and Great Britain. Life was more dangerous and nasty than it is now, but those "barbarian" tribes were far more civilized than Rome ever was after the late Republic. The fall of Rome was the best thing that ever happened to the people of Europe. Slavery was unfortunately rediscovered in Africa.
I also don't get this comparison with the US. I guess US is suppose to be a beacon of free markets but it's not. It's hardly true. The US is a terrible place for free marketeers and its leaders are obsessed with their military tradition - US is better characterized by War Socialism. The place to look to for free markets are all in Asia - Singapore and Hong Kong.
isnt signapore and hong kong just financial hubs of the east? completly attached to how markets around the world are doing? free or not free. and wasnt the fall of rome the beginning of the dark ages? good times? wtf are u talking about : /
oh I think worldwide those rights are not even remotely close to being fulfilled.. but in scandinavia I think they are all established, and to such a degree where it is not ridiculous for finland to name broadband internet as a right.
as for the reference to the bill of rights I made, that was a temporary brainfart and you may ignore it. I wasn't trying to imply anything about usa anyway. and while europe had largely abolished slavery and serfdom during the middle ages, slave-trade wasn't abolished until the 1800s. to me that sounds like they realized that slaves weren't beneficial to a society as a whole but they saw few moral qualms in trading with them.
edit: while I agree that USA is a mixed economy just like the scandinavian countries, just to a different degree, and that usa should thus not be used as an arguement either for nor against libertarianism, and while I absolutely agree that usa has focused far too much on war ever since she became powerful enough to be an international voice, american politics cannot ever be defined as socialism.
Securing cheap internet for the whole population is a must for sparsely populated countries, such as the Scandinavian ones. It allows for development and cost reduction in many other fields, and also enables people to live in more sparsely populated areas.
Anyhow, shouldnt 100 mbit wireless internet throughout the whole country be standard in the year 2015? I mean, its the future.
i could think of a lot more useful things to make a legal right than internet. this sounds like something you do when you have too much time on your hands. get a job finland.
On October 16 2009 05:02 uiCk wrote: isnt signapore and hong kong just financial hubs of the east? completly attached to how markets around the world are doing? free or not free. and wasnt the fall of rome the beginning of the dark ages? good times? wtf are u talking about : /
Off topic, but Dark Ages for who? For slave owners, monks, and scholars who could afford to live off the labour of others or for the average individual whose position on average was equivalent to a slave or had a short lifespan serving as a conscript in the Roman army.
While the Darks Ages were dark times for the educated and saw the disappearance of a the idle and elitist upper class, for the median individual and the lot of the lower class peasant, times were good. If you compared the lot of the slaves or the army conscripts (slaves to the army), the serfs of the Dark Ages were far better off. The Roman Empire was built on oppression. So the more egalitarian spirit of the Dark Ages should be welcomed as one of the great advancement in human rights and humanity.
Granted, Finland's population is more like a very large city than a country as big as the U.S. There are 5.3 million people residing in Finland, mostly in the south. This would place the country about 30th in the ranking of world cities by population, but it still makes it bigger than any U.S. city save New York. Which begs the question - if Finland can do this, why can't more major U.S. cities?
I believe it is because of the national debt of $130 trillion? Come on that HAS to have some kind of effect on the US's biggest cities!
On October 16 2009 05:28 mahnini wrote: i could think of a lot more useful things to make a legal right than internet. this sounds like something you do when you have too much time on your hands. get a job finland.
Finland is well placed in many international comparisons of national performance such as the share of high-technology manufacturing and health care.[8] The country is ranked 3rd in the 2008 Legatum Prosperity rating, which is based on economical performance and quality of life.[9] - wiki finland
im no historian, but i also dont talk like i know everything. quote from wiki: Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Roman times and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. which doesnt sound like good times. obviously when shit hits the fan, we learn, get back and improve, but it doesnt neglect the fact that times were shitty.
i think basically the nay sayers are all from places that such an idea would fail, not because of the idea but because that's cuz you have corrupt governments AND corrupt corporations who will profit short term. until most of you realize the "perfect" system is NOT a socialist state nor a free market state, but a state that can balance both ideals (aka norway). extremes are a nono.
On October 16 2009 05:41 Velr wrote: I'm really shocked that there are people wo think this is a bad thing... REALLY shocked...
You're probably overestimating the number of people that actually use the internet for something productive as opposed to watching porn / playing games / watching youtube videos etc.
The american right wing cognitive dissonance in this thread is awesome. When the ideas you've been fed don't square up to reality, what are you supposed to do? I mean, they're the most educated, happiest, healthiest people on the planet and they have nothing else to improve on except making internet access a right, but surely you can find a twisted convoluted way to rationalize republican propaganda and keep your precious rally slogans...
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.
Did you see their broadband target? They want 100 Mbit to be available EVERYWHERE. That means forcing ISPs to spend millions of dollars running 100Mbit fibers up and down the back-country of Lappi while its cities get a little choked from lack of bandwidth. It also signals the beginning of an tightly-controlled ISP industry because which ISP is going to volunteer to lay miles and miles of fiber pipes for a few sparse customers?
When the US got AT&T to wire up rural "America" with telephone lines, the federal government had to essential offer up a monopoly on the long distance market. I suppose Finland government could pay to lay the 100 MBit lines and give them to certain ISPs to service. That seems like a give away to politically-connected ISPs though.
My thoughts are perhaps the Finnish parliament will come to its senses and scale back its broadband targets and they will resort to more energy-hungry but less capital-intensive and multi-use cellular-based wireless. But even 3-G Broadband (1.5 Mbps) will still be really expensive to deploy in the wilderness and there will be some huge dead zones.
I'll just say that this is a reason not to move to Finland. The broadband availability in their cities will languish and it'll be expensive. Any improvements in speed will have to matched by deadweight investment of bandwidth in rural areas.
Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
On October 16 2009 07:32 RoyW wrote: you do realise that finland is one thirtieth the size of america?
It also only has 1/60 of the population....
"Any improvements in speed will have to matched by deadweight investment of bandwidth in rural areas."
Could you provide any hypothetical figures to back up your wild anti-socialism policies? You seem idealistically invested in opposition to government provision of any facilities. I'm going to guess you oppose a free health-care service, and not to divert the topic, but opposition to that is repulsive, and from a purely fiscal viewpoint, wrong.
they wont be FORCING, they will be suisiding it. long term goal > short term loss. skeopticism runs deep in your argumentation wich is alrite since you come from the land of oppurunity. where theres opportunity there is opportunists, and america has a shitload of that. but dont worry other people in the world know how to build long term without messing up.
go read upon Norway and how they went from nothing to one of the strongest sound economies in the world after they build roads to those 2 people you eep refering too in the north. and thats more of costly plan and cables.
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
The article is really misleading. The Finnish parliament is not buying broadband for everyone. It is merely mandating that broadband be available to be purchased by everyone. The perceived problem is that rural and back country Finland have provided no economic justification for investing in broadband infrastructure into those areas. Without a legal threat or some kind of subsidization, ISPs would not invest in infrastructure just so that they can offer broadband to some rural communities at a price that no one would ever want. Thus there is no broadband for money to buy in some locations.
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
It's not 'nowhere land' it's part of the country they all share taxes with. I don't believe people who live in rural areas should pay a higher % of tax because of the added cost of providing medical assistance, policing, fire protection, road maintenance, and electricity/gas network etc etc etc.
On October 16 2009 07:47 uiCk wrote: they wont be FORCING, they will be suisiding it. long term goal > short term loss. skeopticism runs deep in your argumentation wich is alrite since you come from the land of oppurunity. where theres opportunity there is opportunists, and america has a shitload of that. but dont worry other people in the world know how to build long term without messing up.
go read upon Norway and how they went from nothing to one of the strongest sound economies in the world after they build roads to those 2 people you eep refering too in the north. and thats more of costly plan and cables.
Norway has a strong economy because of Oil. That's it - open secret. It's the same reason why UAE has a strong economy. It's like how that Alaska Oil pipeline and the Siberia natural gas lines and supporting road structures were sound investments.
Norways roads were probably losers though. They had nothing to do with oil extraction in the North Sea. It's just that their offshore oil fields were such a jackpot.
royw , obviously, but when your educated that profit is the only buisness tool, and that anything you pay for and not use is communism, then you have a hard time educating yourself with other issues since, like religion, you already know the answer.
tangen, you dont get my point, (not explaining properly probably). not everything you do has to be profit related for it to work. comes down to that i guess.
edit : also from wiki : Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP. yea its a big chunk, but its not all, anyways not the point.
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
i will definatly take you up on that and call you closed minded. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A closed mind (or closed-minded) is someone unreceptive to new ideas or information. so yea stop running your mouth since this is a debate, wich by nature is an exchange of ideas and information, and since yourself are not able to keep up with such tasks, i would highly recommend an education.
On October 16 2009 07:59 uiCk wrote: royw , obviously, but when your educated that profit is the only buisness tool, and that anything you pay for and not use is communism, then you have a hard time educating yourself with other issues since, like religion, you already know the answer.
And with no long term/big picture view, cutting off their nose to spite their face.
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
It's not 'nowhere land' it's part of the country they all share taxes with. I don't believe people who live in rural areas should pay a higher % of tax because of the added cost of providing medical assistance, policing, fire protection, road maintenance, and electricity/gas network etc etc etc.
this could be usa. you know, they dont even have health insurance
On October 16 2009 07:32 RoyW wrote: you do realise that finland is one thirtieth the size of america?
It also only has 1/60 of the population....
"Any improvements in speed will have to matched by deadweight investment of bandwidth in rural areas."
Could you provide any hypothetical figures to back up your wild anti-socialism policies? You seem idealistically invested in opposition to government provision of any facilities. I'm going to guess you oppose a free health-care service, and not to divert the topic, but opposition to that is repulsive, and from a purely fiscal viewpoint, wrong.
Repulsive is your personal response. I don't really care.
Think about how parliament would get ISPs to lay down broadband in rural areas. 1. They could pay for the infrastructure. (raise taxes or defund some other program) 2. They could subsidize the broadband subscriptions by paying part of the subscription fee. (raise taxes or defund some other program) 3. They could regulate the industry so that several ISPs get preferred treatment for the more profitable regions. (this is like parliament dividing monopoly rights on broadband service over all of Finland.) 4. They could regulate the industry such that ISPs have to match kilometer for kilometer of new broadband piping in urban areas with new broadband piping in rural areas. (rural broadband investments are deadweight since they have no real chance of earning back its capital expenses)
Finnish government has given indication that it will probably be regulating the ISPs. That means either an pseudo-monopoly in ISPs or deadweight investments by ISPs in order to fulfill the segment of the market that will be profitable - the urban and suburban broadband users.
My revulsion against this plan isn't because I'm sure that it's populist socialism. This plan is just as likely going to be a huge corporate giveaway to politically-connect ISPs or to broadband fiber laying companies. It'll definitely benefit the rural districts, and the urban population areas will surely be paying for it - either slower than otherwise upgrade of broadband speeds or higher prices for broadband service but most likely both.
So you disagree with the Finnish government's policy of avoiding excessive urbanization and/or promotion of decentralization? That's your issue that has lead to your paragraphs of heated opposition?
On October 16 2009 08:03 uiCk wrote: tangen, you dont get my point, (not explaining properly probably). not everything you do has to be profit related for it to work. comes down to that i guess.
edit : also from wiki : Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP. yea its a big chunk, but its not all, anyways not the point.
... Do you realize that the 20% of the GDP probably drives about 60% of the economy.
Construction workers, restaurants, schools, housing, boating industry, transportation - a large portion of the supporting infrastructure is built to support the oil industry. The vaunted socialism of Norway is largely depended on the taxes from oil extraction.
Since Norway is so dependent on oil economy, it's actually quite wise for them to invest heavily in education so that future generations can reconstruct a productive economy when the oil wells dry up. Rest of Norwegian socialism isn't so wise and it would be prudent for the people of Norway not to get too accustomed to it.
On October 16 2009 08:22 RoyW wrote: So you disagree with the Finnish government's policy of avoiding excessive urbanization and/or promotion of decentralization? That's your issue that has lead to your paragraphs of heated opposition?
Whats the point of being a rich country if you spend the money that defines you as rich on stuff that does not help your average citizen? (Like the giant armed forces in many countries).
As long as you have homeless, people whiteout healthcare and *true* poverty broadband internet access to everyone may sound a little retarded. But after the other things are basically extinct why not go a step further and do more stuff that actually helps your people... Instead of buying new tanks and jets or reducing taxes for the rich...
That's badass! I would never ever trust the U.S federal government to do something like this as they seem to tard up everything, but perhaps major cities could do something like this.
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to livie out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
You disagree with what exactly? I am saying the matter of nationalization, tax funding or the actual speed are all unimportant compared to the advance made with declaring internet access a right.
To give you some perspective, if things go wrong the next couple of months, a EU-wide legislative will make every member state implement a law that gives the national states the right to ban you from the internet, completely. No ISP would be allowed to give you access once you are black listed. A model of this can be seen in France, where - initially - 3 complaints were enough to get your access revoked. Now at least a judge has to sentence you to offline life. Germany also is a proponent of this. How this will look on the European level is being discussed these days.
By declaring internet access a citizen's basic right, the Fins will be the only people in the EU who will have legal means and tools to reject this legislation outright. There are more implications, for example in the mentioned area of net neutrality, but protection from internet bans is the most current one.
Compared to the danger of the state being allowed to ban you from important parts of educational, social, economic, and cultural life a few tax euro for remote broadband access is laughably unimportant.
On October 16 2009 08:17 TanGeng wrote: My revulsion against this plan isn't because I'm sure that it's populist socialism. This plan is just as likely going to be a huge corporate giveaway to politically-connect ISPs or to broadband fiber laying companies. It'll definitely benefit the rural districts, and the urban population areas will surely be paying for it - either slower than otherwise upgrade of broadband speeds or higher prices for broadband service but most likely both.
what is the problem with urban population paying for rural districts?
On October 15 2009 21:51 zatic wrote: This is one of the threads I feel very strongly about that goes completely in the wrong direction. Please, the important thing here is not "free" internet or tax-paid internet or whether 1mbit or 100mbit is enough. It's that the people have been given a means to enforce their right to internet access, and thus, unhindered participation in today's society. Bigger picture, people.
I disagree. If you want to live out in the middle of the woods in nowhere land then that is your call. You shouldn't however, have the right to make tax dollars spend thousands of dollars so you have have a dsl line coming to your random location.
I just don't see why broadband needs to be nationalized, it's not a necessity for many people and for those of us who need it (like us) well we have it so what's the issue?
Scandinavia is rather sparsely populated and Finland as a society has decided they want to promote decentralization and fight extreme urbanization. I don't see why you would have a problem with that.
Also, there are no tax dollars involved here and broadband isn't being nationalized.
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
i will definatly take you up on that and call you closed minded. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A closed mind (or closed-minded) is someone unreceptive to new ideas or information. so yea stop running your mouth since this is a debate, wich by nature is an exchange of ideas and information, and since yourself are not able to keep up with such tasks, i would highly recommend an education.
Your post is stupid. You presented no new information or ideas in your post for me to discuss and often times well educated people are the most close minded because they think they know it all (not always the case of course.)
Also, I'd never heard of someone being banned from the internet. I guess that is an EU thing? Is it the penalty for piracy or what? Because I always thought I'd read on TL that piracy in the EU isn't really cracked down upon that hard. I can understand the need for legal backing of the right to be online if for some reason internet usage is being so easily revoked but I have never heard of that occurring.
if u need information, gotta learn to read first, im sure someone posted already, but theres diference between created the infrastructure for everyones use, and providing the service free of charge (neither free, nor is the gouverment providing internet to people), so your post is "stupid". your "argument" is somewere along these lines:
On October 16 2009 07:39 Jonoman92 wrote: Call me closed minded but that is fucking ridiculous. If you want broadband then pay for it. But taxing everyone so everyone has it is ridiculous when lots of people won't even use it.
The last line in that article is so stupid. Why can't more US cities have such a measure? How about because first basic needs should be met like getting every citizen adequate food and shelter. Finland sounds selfish almost. They must be doing amazingly well up there if they can spend so much money on such frivolities as making broadband internet a legal right.
i will definatly take you up on that and call you closed minded. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A closed mind (or closed-minded) is someone unreceptive to new ideas or information. so yea stop running your mouth since this is a debate, wich by nature is an exchange of ideas and information, and since yourself are not able to keep up with such tasks, i would highly recommend an education.
Your post is stupid. You presented no new information or ideas in your post for me to discuss and often times well educated people are the most close minded because they think they know it all (not always the case of course.)
Also, I'd never heard of someone being banned from the internet. I guess that is an EU thing? Is it the penalty for piracy or what? Because I always thought I'd read on TL that piracy in the EU isn't really cracked down upon that hard. I can understand the need for legal backing of the right to be online if for some reason internet usage is being so easily revoked but I have never heard of that occurring.
The internet ban is for "file-sharing" which I suppose the legislators actually mean illegal torrenting/downloading. The problem is that if you just ban said people off the internet altogether, it's not just file sharing that they cannot do anymore, but also staying informed. For example, as far as I can tell, the mainstream news media in the US is a combination of "Fuck the liberals" + "Fuck the conservatives" and then a bunch of random news that are so random and pointless that you wonder why they made front cover. The internet is just a far better place to stay informed and not get your worldview completely twisted and fucked up, if you know how to navigate it.
If people are simply supporting this "broadband is right" because they like rural districts, then I don't understand what the hype is. But it's hardly something to get excite about. It is everyday politics.
If people are excited about broadband and excellent broadband service, the law is counterproductive. The economics of the situation suggests that broadband infrastructure improvements in the cities will be dragged down by mandated investments in rural areas. It's not good policy for the best broadband access, and moving to Finland for broadband would be a terrible idea.
If it's just to feel good about making broadband a "right" - rather classifying it as a necessary utility - I would suggest that they examine what the costs will be. At best, feel good laws are exercises in masturbation. At worst, it's like shooting heroin.
Interesting, that's pretty cool I guess. Does this also mean they can't shut off your net for pirating?
Because of Government regulation of ISPs, the law makes it more likely that they will shut off your net for pirating.
On October 16 2009 18:46 zatic wrote: (...)I am saying the matter of nationalization, tax funding or the actual speed are all unimportant compared to the advance made with declaring internet access a right.(...)
Both nationalization and a right to internet are very important. The former arguably is a large step backwards and the latter is a large step forwards: it is a recognition of article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights.
(...)By declaring internet access a citizen's basic right, the Fins will be the only people in the EU who will have legal means and tools to reject this legislation outright. There are more implications, for example in the mentioned area of net neutrality, but protection from internet bans is the most current one.(...)
There is a humongous difference between a legal entitlement and a legal right. A legal right means nobody can interfere with you getting internet access. A legal entitlement means that, if you don't have internet access, you can sue someone to provide it for you. The former is article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights. The latter is socialization of internet, which is arguably a big step backwards.
(...)Compared to the danger of the state being allowed to ban you from important parts of educational, social, economic, and cultural life a few tax euro for remote broadband access is laughably unimportant.(...)
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.
The Finnish initiative, however, is much more about socializing internet than about a recognition of article 25. The Finnish government will happily ban people from the socialized net "to prevent the spread of child pornography" and "to prevent piracy."
On October 17 2009 01:52 TanGeng wrote: If people are simply supporting this "broadband is right" because they like rural districts, then I don't understand what the hype is. But it's hardly something to get excite about. It is everyday politics.
If people are excited about broadband and excellent broadband service, the law is counterproductive. The economics of the situation suggests that broadband infrastructure improvements in the cities will be dragged down by mandated investments in rural areas. It's not good policy for the best broadband access, and moving to Finland for broadband would be a terrible idea.
If it's just to feel good about making broadband a "right" - rather classifying it as a necessary utility - I would suggest that they examine what the costs will be. At best, feel good laws are exercises in masturbation. At worst, it's like shooting heroin.
Interesting, that's pretty cool I guess. Does this also mean they can't shut off your net for pirating?
Because of Government regulation of ISPs, the law makes it more likely that they will shut off your net for pirating.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the reason it can be necessary (for an EU nation) to declare something like broadband a "right" is because there have been recent proposals within the EU which could get your internet shut off. However, if a member nation has granted said broadband as a right to its citizens, then it is allowed to opt out of enforcing the decision. Sure, there is a cost involved, but really there's no reason not to when one of your goals is to decentralize from the large urban areas anyways. It's like saying why build large roads through the middle of the US where the population is sparse.
Your point about slowing down infrastructure development in the urban areas: yea, it will probably slow it down, but if you want to have acceptable internet service as a right (which 1 mb/s is sufficient for most if not all social participation/awareness purposes), then obviously you would take priority in making sure everyone has the ability to exercise that right before you improve on the ability of those who can already exercise it to exercise it better.
Granted, I personally find this to be somewhat silly from an economic viewpoint, but I can see how it can be useful due to the political circumstances.
(...)By declaring internet access a citizen's basic right, the Fins will be the only people in the EU who will have legal means and tools to reject this legislation outright. There are more implications, for example in the mentioned area of net neutrality, but protection from internet bans is the most current one.(...)
There is a humongous difference between a legal entitlement and a legal right. A legal right means nobody can interfere with you getting internet access. A legal entitlement means that, if you don't have internet access, you can sue someone to provide it for you. The former is article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights. The latter is socialization of internet, which is arguably a big step backwards.
So the Finnish proposal is declaring internet service a citizen's legal entitlement rather than a legal right? The way I understood it, it was being declared a legal right, but then the government is entitled to the ability to reject any EU proposed law that would encroach upon a citizen's basic rights.
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 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.
This.
There's pros and cons for every type of economic structure. Ultimately, what's most important in this argument is that the people are happy in the country they live in. Here's a good statistical website for you guys to go nuts about:
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.)
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.
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 03:16 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?
Just to make a comment on your rural America statement, because I don't have an issue with Norway or European countries doing what their doing, they seem to be doing fairly well. I think it depends where you are in America, the U.S. is a huge country, here in Texas at least a lot of people live in rural America and where I am from are fairly wealthy, are cattle ranchers, farmers, wielders, and make quite good money doing it, but even in small towns its just like cities, you have poor areas (but not in dire straits), richer neighborhoods and big fancy mansions out in the country, you won't see these on t.v. because they are out in the middle of nowhere but there are quite a few. tv and movies are not representative, however we do have terrible internet and broadband access in rural texas at least in my area, satellite internet sucks.
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.)
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.
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.
A lot of people in "small town America" like the whole old-fashioned small town thing and a lot of places have building codes that even new buildings have to have the old-fashioned look. There's a small town that I drive through on the way to a poker room about 15 miles from my house that has all the wood buildings and a tiny diner and mom and pop shops. The kind of design that you'd expect to see a tumbleweed blowing in the wind.
a good example of small town America I think is the movie "slingblade" starring Billy Bob Thornton. Some of the actors in the movie are actually just friends of his from rural Arkansas
Yeah, there is a huge amount of subsidization of rural regions in the US. Here are the primary subsidies, but there are many many more.
Farm Subsidies - A single large corporate agribusiness unit gets millions of dollars from federal government to operate and the money supports surrounding support structure. Infrastructure subsidies - highway built in across rural areas that mostly stay empty. The highway system has several other external effects such as promoting trucking and killing the railway system. Water subsidies - most common in California and Arizona where farmers have water use rights priced 10 times below residential prices.
Personally I value the environment highly, and rural corporate agribusiness developments wrecks a large amount of damage on the environment. The two subsidies that I would like to see removed would be water subsidization and farm subsidization. The former is the primary reason why California and Arizona face water shortages and Mexico no longer gets water from the Colorado river. Farm subsidizes primarily benefit large corporate entities. They have the most questionable environmental pollution policies. Small family farms general preserve the environment better since they have to live in the area and are accountable to their neighbors. Many other US regulatory agencies like the USDA and FDA tilt the competition in favor of corporate entities as well.
Overall, I see nothing wrong with naked promotion of living in rural areas. I think being upfront and direct with cash payments, tax credits, or tax exemptions would be more desirable than indirect ways. I tend to think that mandating broadband for Finland and Water Subsidies in California will show or have shown some nasty side effects. In Finland's law, it looks like the primary benefactors will be companies that specialize in laying down fiber.
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.)
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.
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.
I think your value system falls under "promotion of rural lifestyle" - well not exactly. You want rural folks to get broadband. The law is acceptable to people who value that to a high degree.
I haven't said what is best since peoples' and organizations' needs vary, but with Finland's law the people who already have broadband will see desired improvements to satisfy those needs delayed in order to bring broadband to the rural areas. Those hoping for cutting edge broadband service and pricing of the kind that they want will likely find Finland is not the place to go. Those addicted to the internet but like to live really far away from other people will find Finland is the place to go. I hear it helps like the cold, too.
TanGen, Finland will have a 100 Mbit service guarantee by the end of 2015 so stop using the "yea all in Finland will have access but only at slow speeds with poor quality" argument. And further most people that live in the highest populated areas of Finland already has this option.
The preliminary baseline details are: 67 million euros estimated to be paid for by the central government. 200 million euros in total plan 100 Mbps for 2km around high speed hubs by 2015 (not available in remote locations - better figure out where the high speed hub is) 3G delivery for certain places (smart - makes sense for islands and remote locations)
This sounds far less ambitious than less detailed announcements. It does sound like the government has essentially taken over the ISPs business - for better and for worse. I guess we'll just have to wait for 2015. But at least it sounds like it's going to work.
"And while 100Mbps will be the minimum service standard, it’s predicted that homes in the capital of Helsinki will enjoy connections around 1Gbps. Yes, you read that right - we’re talking about Gigabit broadband."
Mother fucking 1Gbps connection, you gotta be shitting me!!
1 Gbps accesses already exist. Not many residential areas have them because there's no demand. I think Sweden will get there just as fast. Looking at my area, I can get 120 Mbps. Its costs are too high for my needs. I'd think that it'd be the same way in Helsinki.
3G is rather lossy. So by 2015, the cellular network should give 2 Mbps reliabily. 5 Mbps might be possible.
@ Blackjack
No, people of Finland will still have to pay, and service will be subject to restrictions and availability.
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.
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.
It's awesome how this thread went from Broadband being a legal right in Finland to the great evils of socialism and taxes and how it will sink the whole broadband effort and fuck up Finland forever.
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.
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.
Well Zatic it seems you understand the bigger picture perfectly, but the Fins Finnish government does not. It is not recognizing internet access as a legal right, it is recognizing it as a legal entitlement.
On October 17 2009 20:17 Phrujbaz wrote: Integra does that mean that nobody can be banned from the internet, for any reason? That is what a legal right means.
In Sweden you have legal rights such as free of speech and to move freely, to start up a business or to go to ground school. These are all fundamental rights. However if you use that freedom of speech to discriminate ot to speak ill or to provoke a minoity group or if you try to kill someone or cmitt a crime or if you don't do your bussiness according to good conduct or if you start making trouble at the school like fighting or cheating at tests. Then yes these rights will be taken away from you. This includes Broadband.
Integra this is what I call moral corruption. What is the meaning of a legal right to broadband if it can be legislated away? What is the point of calling it a fundamental right then?
Freedom of speech is not a legal entitlement to speak. It is a negative right to speak. If I am in my house, I am free to say whatever I want. Nobody has the right to preventing me from speaking. However, if I am at a school, they might say "if you are here, be nice to your fellow students." They can have that restriction on my speech as a condition for me being a student at that school. I can't sue them for "hey I wanted to speak but they won't let me."
Freedom of the press is not a legal entitlement either. If I want to publish a newspaper, I should not get money from the government in order to publicize my thoughts. The only thing I have is a negative right to freedom of the press. If I buy my own paper and ink, then I can write on the paper whatever I want to, and I can sell that paper to whomever I want to. Nobody can prevent me. That is freedom of the press.
What is happening right in the developed world is that such rights are being diluted. Partly, subsidies are turning what used to be a negative right into a positive right. In The Netherlands, some people are making provocative and discriminating movies, offensive to minorities and contributing to the hate in society, and they are doing it from my tax money. All the tax payers are rightly pissed. However, the proposed solution is awful. They want to dilute the negative right to freedom of the press to put restrictions on it like "you can't incite hate." What will be left of our freedom of the press if we dilute it more and more?
This is the moral corruption I am talking about. One the one hand, there is growing acceptance in society for turning originally negative rights into positive rights, into legal entitlements. And I don't want people inciting hate from my tax money. And at the same time, we are diluting originally negative rights by putting restrictions on the kinds of opinions people can voice.
The Finnish broadband initiative does little to improve the situation of the negative right to broadband. You can still be banned for file-sharing. The only thing that is added is the positive right to broadband, to socialized internet. And it's championed under the banner of human rights. That is moral corruption.
On October 17 2009 20:35 Phrujbaz wrote: Integra this is what I call moral corruption. What is the meaning of a legal right to broadband if it can be legislated away? What is the point of calling it a fundamental right then?
Freedom of speech is not a legal entitlement to speak. It is a negative right to speak. If I am in my house, I am free to say whatever I want. Nobody has the right to preventing me from speaking. However, if I am at a school, they might say "if you are here, be nice to your fellow students." They can have that restriction on my speech as a condition for me being a student at that school. I can't sue them for "hey I wanted to speak but they won't let me."
Freedom of the press is not a legal entitlement either. If I want to publish a newspaper, I should not get money from the government in order to publicize my thoughts. The only thing I have is a negative right to freedom of the press. If I buy my own paper and ink, then I can write on the paper whatever I want to, and I can sell that paper to whomever I want to. Nobody can prevent me. That is freedom of the press.
What is happening right in the developed world is that such rights are being diluted. Partly, subsidies are turning what used to be a negative right into a positive right. In The Netherlands, some people are making provocative and discriminating movies, offensive to minorities and contributing to the hate in society, and they are doing it from my tax money. All the tax payers are rightly pissed. However, the proposed solution is awful. They want to dilute the negative right to freedom of the press to put restrictions on it like "you can't incite hate." What will be left of our freedom of the press if we dilute it more and more?
This is the moral corruption I am talking about. One the one hand, there is growing acceptance in society for turning originally negative rights into positive rights, into legal entitlements. And I don't want people inciting hate from my tax money. And at the same time, we are diluting originally negative rights by putting restrictions on the kinds of opinions people can voice.
The Finnish broadband initiative does little to improve the situation of the negative right to broadband. You can still be banned for file-sharing. The only thing that is added is the positive right to broadband, to socialized internet. And it's championed under the banner of human rights. That is moral corruption.
I don't care what you think or believe or percieve what legal rights should involve or be defined as.
Everything I typed above is considered By the Swedish government and it's people as "En rättighet" or legal rights that every person that is born in Sweden recieve the moment they become a Swedish citizen. And no speculation or theory of yours will change this fact, I hardly think The social democrats or the Moderaterna would listen to you
What is the point of a legal right to broadband if it's not absolute? What does this legal right offer me above and beyond what I already have: the legal right to enter into contract with service providers to install broadband at my home? There are two possibilities:
1) legal entitlement If there is no broadband provider that is willing to enter into contract with me, I have the right to sue them to provide me with broadband for free or at a price determined by law. Alternatively, the government provides me with broadband.
2) legal right No person, law, or punishment shall prevent me from gaining access to broadband.
If it's not one of these two, then "a legal right to broadband that every person that is born receive the moment they become citizen" is completely meaningless. Everyone already has the right to buy broadband, same as they have right to do whatever they want with their money.
A legal entitlement to socialized broadband is highly controversial. Much more controversial than a negative right to broadband. So which is it? Meaningless, negative right, or legal entitlement?
On October 17 2009 20:52 Phrujbaz wrote: What is the point of a legal right to broadband if it's not absolute? What does this legal right offer me above and beyond what I already have: the legal right to enter into contract with service providers to install broadband at my home? There are two possibilities:
1) legal entitlement If there is no broadband provider that is willing to enter into contract with me, I have the right to sue them to provide me with broadband for free or at a price determined by law. Alternatively, the government provides me with broadband.
2) legal right No person, law, or punishment shall prevent me from gaining access to broadband unless I myself break the law and thus forfeit my right to use its services.
Well Integra, if that is how it is perceived in Sweden and/or Skandinavia then indeed it's completely worthless to make Internet access a legal right. If you break the law you should be fined or thrown in jail - not your internet access revoked.
And I seriously doubt that is or will be the practice in Skandinavia. You guys are usually smarter thatn this. I mean, if you break the law using your right to free speech you don't forbid people to speak at all in the future either, right?
On October 15 2009 20:24 Integra wrote: "The Finnish government has done what no other nation has; it has made broadband Internet access a guaranteed legal right of its citizens. According to Finnish news site YLE, The Ministry of Transport and Communications says everyone in the country will be entitled to a guaranteed 1 Mbit connection by next July. This is fascinating, but it's really only half the story.
The real news is that the country considers this just a preliminary stepping stone to a 100 Mbit service guarantee by the end of 2015. According to the story, "Some variation will be allowed, if connectivity can be arranged through mobile phone networks."
Granted, Finland's population is more like a very large city than a country as big as the U.S. There are 5.3 million people residing in Finland, mostly in the south. This would place the country about 30th in the ranking of world cities by population, but it still makes it bigger than any U.S. city save New York. Which begs the question - if Finland can do this, why can't more major U.S. cities?"
On October 15 2009 20:24 Integra wrote: "The Finnish government has done what no other nation has; it has made broadband Internet access a guaranteed legal right of its citizens. According to Finnish news site YLE, The Ministry of Transport and Communications says everyone in the country will be entitled to a guaranteed 1 Mbit connection by next July. This is fascinating, but it's really only half the story.
The real news is that the country considers this just a preliminary stepping stone to a 100 Mbit service guarantee by the end of 2015. According to the story, "Some variation will be allowed, if connectivity can be arranged through mobile phone networks."
Granted, Finland's population is more like a very large city than a country as big as the U.S. There are 5.3 million people residing in Finland, mostly in the south. This would place the country about 30th in the ranking of world cities by population, but it still makes it bigger than any U.S. city save New York. Which begs the question - if Finland can do this, why can't more major U.S. cities?"
On October 15 2009 20:24 Integra wrote: "The Finnish government has done what no other nation has; it has made broadband Internet access a guaranteed legal right of its citizens. According to Finnish news site YLE, The Ministry of Transport and Communications says everyone in the country will be entitled to a guaranteed 1 Mbit connection by next July. This is fascinating, but it's really only half the story.
The real news is that the country considers this just a preliminary stepping stone to a 100 Mbit service guarantee by the end of 2015. According to the story, "Some variation will be allowed, if connectivity can be arranged through mobile phone networks."
Granted, Finland's population is more like a very large city than a country as big as the U.S. There are 5.3 million people residing in Finland, mostly in the south. This would place the country about 30th in the ranking of world cities by population, but it still makes it bigger than any U.S. city save New York. Which begs the question - if Finland can do this, why can't more major U.S. cities?"
On October 15 2009 20:24 Integra wrote: "The Finnish government has done what no other nation has; it has made broadband Internet access a guaranteed legal right of its citizens. According to Finnish news site YLE, The Ministry of Transport and Communications says everyone in the country will be entitled to a guaranteed 1 Mbit connection by next July. This is fascinating, but it's really only half the story.
The real news is that the country considers this just a preliminary stepping stone to a 100 Mbit service guarantee by the end of 2015. According to the story, "Some variation will be allowed, if connectivity can be arranged through mobile phone networks."
Granted, Finland's population is more like a very large city than a country as big as the U.S. There are 5.3 million people residing in Finland, mostly in the south. This would place the country about 30th in the ranking of world cities by population, but it still makes it bigger than any U.S. city save New York. Which begs the question - if Finland can do this, why can't more major U.S. cities?"
Re-read what he wrote. He didn't make the initial error, the PCWorld article did. It also seems a bit odd to enter a discussion to simply proclaim you have no intention of participating in said discussion.
On October 17 2009 21:43 zatic wrote: Well Integra, if that is how it is perceived in Sweden and/or Skandinavia then indeed it's completely worthless to make Internet access a legal right. If you break the law you should be fined or thrown in jail - not your internet access revoked.
And I seriously doubt that is or will be the practice in Skandinavia. You guys are usually smarter thatn this. I mean, if you break the law using your right to free speech you don't forbid people to speak at all in the future either, right?
Well On that definition (not revoked even if punished) There are VERY few rights, possibly a right to life in European countries that forbid the death penalty.
but I believe most of your rights can be taken away by certain punishments, with a few exceptions (religion, ?speech?maybe.probably some cases when that could get taken away as a punishment, fair trial, no cruel/unusual punishment are some of the few rights that aren't ever taken away... right to vote is often taken from felons, as is right to bear arms, and of course liberty and property. right to assembly is often removed in gang cases)
Other than those rights specifically talking about the system of punishments and requirement of trials, then most rights are potentially forfeit temporarily as part of a punishment. (religion is the only one I can think of.. and possibly speech.)
Absolute negative rights are few. Right to life is one. Right to bodily integrity is one. Most human rights can only be revoked if someone, a criminal, has violated somebody else's human rights. For example, murderers and rapists can be thrown in jail, despite the right to freedom of movement. Copyright violators, however, get fined. I think this is a distinction useful to preserve. I'm a freedom-minded person. I like my rights to be as absolute as possible.
I see nothing wrong with making access to internet an absolute right. Most prisoners in The Netherlands have access to broadband - at least for a few hours a week. Not even murderers and rapists get denied food, shelter, television and broadband.
The thing is, this Finnish initiative is about socializing broadband access, and doing it in the name of making internet access a right. Nothing is added above the the right to freedom of contract that we already have. The right to buy broadband if you want it. So I think calling this initiative "making broadband access a legal right" is pushing socialism under false pretences.
On October 17 2009 21:43 zatic wrote: Well Integra, if that is how it is perceived in Sweden and/or Skandinavia then indeed it's completely worthless to make Internet access a legal right. If you break the law you should be fined or thrown in jail - not your internet access revoked.
And I seriously doubt that is or will be the practice in Skandinavia. You guys are usually smarter thatn this. I mean, if you break the law using your right to free speech you don't forbid people to speak at all in the future either, right?
Well On that definition (not revoked even if punished) There are VERY few rights, possibly a right to life in European countries that forbid the death penalty.
but I believe most of your rights can be taken away by certain punishments, with a few exceptions (religion, ?speech?maybe.probably some cases when that could get taken away as a punishment, fair trial, no cruel/unusual punishment are some of the few rights that aren't ever taken away... right to vote is often taken from felons, as is right to bear arms, and of course liberty and property. right to assembly is often removed in gang cases)
Other than those rights specifically talking about the system of punishments and requirement of trials, then most rights are potentially forfeit temporarily as part of a punishment. (religion is the only one I can think of.. and possibly speech.)
Uhm what you are confusing me. Over here, and in Sweden as well, even if Integra insists on being that retarded, the punishment you can get for "abusing" one of your given rights affect either liberty or property, just as you and I said. In no case will one of your rights be revoked (completely) for you just because you "abused" it.
Obviously there are temporary limitations to your rights in many situations, but they are not result of trial and punishment. Things may be different in the US though.
Phrujbaz: Can you for once give a source for this? No article I read about this ever gives details for how this is going to be implemented. All I read is internet access will be a legal right. Where is the false pretence?
On October 19 2009 17:00 zatic wrote: Phrujbaz: Can you for once give a source for this? No article I read about this ever gives details for how this is going to be implemented. All I read is internet access will be a legal right. Where is the false pretence?
Yes Zatic and you understandably, but naively assume that that means what it says. It does not. They mean to make broadband access a legal entitlement.
socialism noun °Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.
On October 19 2009 17:00 zatic wrote: Phrujbaz: Can you for once give a source for this? No article I read about this ever gives details for how this is going to be implemented. All I read is internet access will be a legal right. Where is the false pretence?
Yes Zatic and you understandably, but naively assume that that means what it says. It does not. They mean to make broadband access a legal entitlement.
And you know this how? Don't get me wrong it may very well happen how you see and I am not even saying it is unlikely. Just want to read where you know this from. If it's just your opinion you should say that. Oh and please don't use Integra as your source he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
As far as I can tell they will do both - make Internet access a legal right and while they are at it, also an entitlement if you will. As I said on page 1/2 of this thread the latter part is unimportant compared to the implications of the first part.
Also this is just their way of doing things. I don't think if they will in the end have public internet anyone will deny that they socialized internet access, so I still don't get what the false pretence would be.
Zatic: I think it's likely that socializing broadband will at first make Finland more likely to reject laws such as "three strikes and you're out" that revoke internet access from file sharers. If internet access is important enough to socialize, then it will be important enough not to revoke if someone is filesharing. This is pure speculation, it is nowhere mentioned in any article, newspaper or official statement. But, in this sense, if you are indifferent to socializing broadband, it is a step in the right direction, because socialists will think internet access more important.
What irks me is that it is perfectly possible to make internet access a legal right without socializing internet. That is why I think this is just pushing socialism, nothing more. Especially because over the long term Finland will follow along with the rest of Europe anyway if it comes to implementing "three strikes and you're out" legislation - socializing broadband will not prevent it for very long if at all.
Confusing legal right and legal entitlement here is I think what you should be careful off. I'm very happy that you applaud internet access being a legal right. I do too. I'm not so happy that this has to be tied to socializing broadband; I'd rather have a separate discussion about socializing broadband than about making it a legal right. If socialism here is accepted simply because it is tied to something useful, then I think that is a bad thing. If we are to accept socialism, it should be because socialism is good.
Alright fair enough. Just stop saying I am confusing things when I said 10 pages ago I don't want the discussion go towards legal entitlement -> socialism / free market (boooooring) but instead talk about the impact of internet access being a legal right.
Glad to see we have the same opinion on this after all.
On October 15 2009 21:48 Too_MuchZerg wrote: I am waiting for that 2015 100MBit broadband thing. Though its going to cost some money (because usually government supports building infrastructure certain % amount). But 5 years, dont know if this going to happen.
You'll be waiting for a long time, the government keeps promising this sort of shit but never does it follow up on it. If the government kept it's word everyone would have a minium of 8mb connections already, the moon would have been towed to Finland and unicorns would be running wild in the streets.
The funny thing about this piece of news is that nobody in Finland cares about it, no Finnish newspapers reported it, I only heard about it from American sites. That's because this is the sort of meaningless bullshit our great parliament does daily. Tobacco will also be eradicated from our great country by 2015, nobody still cares.
When I found the follow up details about it, the plan seemed very very conservative.
200 Million Euro Infrastructure plan. 33% funded by Finnish Parliament. Rest imposed on local municipalities and ISPs. Cellular distribution to remote regions. Focused entirely on availability not pricing or affordability. 100 Mbps is only for within 2km of high speed hubs - and in 5 years.
That's enough time for broadband bandwidth to naturally increase by a factor of 10 through market forces especially if there's any real demand for it. 4G cellular distribution also has nominal bandwidth of 100 Mbps but all the cellular networks are so lossy so sustained rates will be much lower. The technology for all this infrastructure already exists and it's already deployed for most of Finland's population. It only changes outlooks for parts of the country where there is no economic justification for investment in such infrastructure.
It's politics as usual. Allocate a large amount of money, and asymmetrically benefit the rural areas more than urban areas. I'm sure the most populous places in Finland already have 100 Mbps available. They will have hit their targets 5 years early. But at least members of Finnish parliament can feel good about themselves for having decreed something for the rest of the country to have to carry out.
EPT
