This one appears to be a law that can easily be upheld in Finland, which, incidentally, seems to have surprisingly expensive broadband :downcast:
Printable View
This one appears to be a law that can easily be upheld in Finland, which, incidentally, seems to have surprisingly expensive broadband :downcast:
So, if you walk into a hospital over here, you're not treated? News to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Nessie, are your medical records/healthcare, and schools/education information systems all computerized and 'wired'? I'm guessing they probably are, since 95% of your nation is connected.
The US is still discussing how to do this. Some of it's about our 'right' to privacy, but also because it's vastly different to do this for 300 million people over such a wide swath of land than Finland with her 5 million. We also have different state laws and tax schemes, and federal stuff on top.
As far as cost, not sure what you people pay, but my internet and cable tv together cost $117/month....
They didn't put it in the Constitution. The best example of how errosive 'social basic rights' can be is the Soviet Union. Soviet Citizens had golden rights, but not a reality to back it up. It was that more than anything else that led to the collapse of the USSR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Actually this debate is a bit silly because - as has been pointed out already by several people - it's not really a 'legal right to have internet', but an obligation of companies to prevent them from cherry picking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Obama announces broadband jobs grants
President says $800 million will directly create 5,000 jobs
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama announced Friday nearly $800 million in loans and grants for the build-out of broadband networks to reach homes, schools and hospitals.
The grants and loans, which will be matched by another $200 million in private investment, is part of Obama's roughly $800 billion federal stimulus package, which includes $7.2 billion for broadband expansion projects.
Obama said the 66 new infrastructure projects will directly create 5,000 jobs and help spur economic development in some of the nation's hardest-hit communities.
The announcement comes amid news that U.S. employment fell for the first time this year in June as thousands of temporary census jobs ended and private hiring grew less than expected.
"Once we emerge from the immediate crisis, the long-term economic gains to communities that have been left behind in the digital age will be immeasurable," Obama said at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.
The departments of Agriculture and Commerce are administering a total of $7.2 billion in grants and loans for projects in 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Increasing broadband access to rural and low-income families and small businesses is a major part of the National Broadband Plan issued by the Federal Communications Commission earlier this year.
The FCC plan set several goals to increase the number of people who have subscribed to high-speed Internet, provide greater access to families and institutions that lack broadband and help wireless companies get more airwaves to meet the expected growth in wireless devices.
The projects Obama announced will include laying communications lines to homes, hospitals and schools and expanding computer facilities in libraries, community colleges and other public areas.
The White House said with Friday's projects, more than $2.7 billion in broadband grants and loans will have been awarded to more than 260 projects across the country since December 2009.
"Broadband can remove geographic barriers between patients and their doctors,' Obama said. "It can connect our kids to the digital skills and 21st century education required for the jobs of the future."
Copyright 2010 Reuters.
I don't know why they can't just let a Market do that for us. Socialist goody goodies, always making things better for lazy people.
As much as our constitution and founding fathers had a good idea and all......ours is set up with the government as the big bad wolf, capable of tyranny and so horrible that we'd need armed militias to keep them from Treading on Us.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Maybe it's a pointy head interpretation thing, which is why we value the Supreme Court so much, when the legislative branch can get it so fucked up.
If our constitution just said everyone is equal, with access to all basic things necessary to live an educated, healthy, safe life, and pursue happiNess---corporations and states would just have to figure out how to do that. Even as the world changes, with new information and science. If our bible is to be the constitution, it should be a living document that progresses and changes, just as peoples and sciences does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
This is just my opinion, butQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
This piece of legislation seems to be more of a reaction to what is already going on, not a movement to create anything new by a "socialist behemoth" as Randy put it. Broadband is cheaper than taters here, and wireless broadband (yes) is becoming a norm even in the countryside, so it's definitely a feel-good piece of legislating to make it a right. However, on the flip side of the coin, it's a fucking gods-send to the population who're dealing with the bureaucracy of the state as this removes the last vestiges of "lol internet" from the workers of the Nanny State (tm).
The crying bald eagles can keep on crying for all I care, I'm sorry if that makes someone feel left out :(
Look, you either go out and get this stuff yourself, or you're a socialist loser. Get it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
#1. There is an ammendment system baked into the constitution . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
#2. Way too many Americans think that a government that does something for you is a government that is either:
a. trying to enslave you, or
b. serving the lowest common denominator, in terms of willingness to work, to the detriment of the hardworking, bootstrapping, American archtype.
In short, they would never support the Humanitarian Baseline, strictly for their own screwy emotional reasons.
Amendments to our Amendments. Same thing.
Don't call it EMOTIONAL, that's where the fundies start saying Bleeding Heart Liberal.....which is rather odd from a nation where bucking trends and challenging conventional wisdom from royal elites or monied power mongers leveled the playing field for the individual. They called it Justice and it's supposed to be blind?
No no no - the reason they won't support it is for their own emotional reasons: fear, resentment, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
On the one hand, this will effectively stop dead any attempt by copyright holders to put pressure on ISPs over piracy clamp downs. I think Finnish providers might struggle with the 1Mb requirement in some rural areas, though.
Fear and resentment of what and whom? Poorer people without a laptop or desktop who could ride a public bus or train to any public library or social services office, and access the internet to apply for a job? Read about their rights? Apply for public assistance for food and shelter or medical care? Find a way to get job training or day care for their kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
It's not like the OLD DAYS where anyone could put a quarter in the newspaper stand to find employment or educational opportunities, or use a public phone booth to make calls.
In case anyone hadn't noticed.....print newspapers are going bust all over the place, and public phone booths are like dinosaurs.
Most phone booths have also become unregulated. That collect call that used to cost $1 a minute a few years ago now costs $35. :down:
That's not what I said. Please try again. And your example does not back your argument either, my dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Hint: Look at the difference between "can not" and "will not".
No, the state is setting price ceilings that are in some circumstances far below what it costs the company to provide a service. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
After the state has poured a whole lot of MONEY to the infrastructure necessary :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:o
And then force private firms to pay the bill for this "right". :bored: Sorry, but a reasonable solution would be to have the government pay for broadband access that's above a certain price. This is just forcing the private sector to pay for the "generosity" of the state.
Uh huh :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Sure they did :o
Because the money the firms dole out, supposedly, for providing less-than-Comcast-prices, flows to the coffers of the state
:o
It's so clear
Here Low-key, you can share my tin-foil
It wasn't state-funded
I promise
:o
(So how about that right to postal service or housing)
Your solution seems far more socialist than what actually happened :confused: And you didn't explain how this legislation is taking money from a company to a gubment, eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:bored: This is the equivalent of a government telling private postal service companies that they have to send packages to everyone in the country for a price no more than x, regardless of how much it actually costs them. Not that I expect you to care about the government trying to make itself look good at the expense of the private sector.
:bored: Yes, this is what actually happens in Communist FinlandQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, this statement only serves to reflect your disdain for everything that might benefit those whom you consider unfit!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I thought they were just requiring some particular companies to offer a 1mbps subscription at an affordable price :confused: where are you getting this stuff about setting price ceilings far below the cost of providing a service from? It doesn't really cost very much to provide 1mbps in a country like Finland :confused:
GUBMENTQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
BAD
What is so hard about that?
Have you read anything I've written? My problem isn't so much with people getting the broadband at a discounted cost as it is with private firms being forced to sell services at below cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
What do you think affordable price means? :bored: If this was already a reality, there'd be no reason to create a law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I haven't seen you prove anyone selling anything below "cost", you've just been belly-aching over gubment stealing mah moneezz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No I think it may have been an uncharitable interpretation of the original article, which amounts to "everyone should have super-fast broadband access for super-cheap". While I may have misread as well I think it's pretty clear that any company would be able to comply by offering eg a subscription for 1mbps for 30 euro, which, btw, would be absurdly expensive.
See above. There would be no reason for a law if the government didn't think service wasn't being provided or wasn't being provided at "affordable" prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And why do you suppose companies don't do that already?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The article says "It said a monthly fee of Euros 30 to 40 (around $37 to $47) would be reasonable in most cases." For a 1mbs connection, that's absurdly expensive (i.e. way above market rates)