Finland: Broadband Access is a Legal Right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

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.

---

:bored:

You seem to delight in embodying everything that makes people desire regulation of a free market

Jesus Christ

Quote:

---

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.

---

No, it's not. Delivery of an ethernet wave service that's just "out there" anyway, is NOT like delivering a weight-based product via transit on roads with multiple drivers and physical connections.

What do you think of "Free Radio" transmissions? The stations are regulated by a government agency but funded by private commercial enterprise. Millions of people can listen to the transmission if they have the beefed up towers and wires.

Definitely not the same analogy as postal or package delivery service that have targeted delivery points. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And why do you suppose companies don't do that already?

---

Tbh I don't know what the situation is, in Finland. I know that in parts of sthlm where the fiber-optic network has been completed (like, everywhere? :o) there are no problems with getting 10/10mbps for under 30 euros.

It's possible that, in Finland, telecom companies have just forgotten about people who'd pay for 1mbps if it were available and affordable, I dunno.

Okay from Swedish articles I get the idea this is about making sure that the companies who have been given the right to provide internet connection through eg. the fibre-optic network where you live have at least one plan that is affordable for you even if you're a pauper.

Btw, isn't Spain another country that's decided something like this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

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.

And why do you suppose companies don't do that already?

---

They don't care about the 5% that can't access their stuff? They can't find a profit margin there?

You may as well ask why rural America doesn't have the cell towers of Manhattan. Or why we pay through the nose for reliable cell phone service. They wrote off a huge chunk of middle America, that's why. Never mind that their ads tout a map of the nation with "the bestest service evar" but you can't drive through a fucking tunnel without getting disconnected.

Or that certain smart phones are so stupid they rely on just one network for service, spotty at best. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

:bored:

You seem to delight in embodying everything that makes people desire regulation of a free market

Jesus Christ

---

Regulation != price ceilings

I wonder how this law is actually to be enforced? If there's a house in Lapland with no access to a broadband connection, who is held responsible? Every ISP in Finland? Satellite broadband can be had at 1mbs or better for prices compatible with the €40 figure, and that does not require any actual infrastructure. So in that sense this law is already being complied with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Regulation != price ceilings

---

I'm mmmmmelting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Regulation != price ceilings

---

You said it. So how are you conflating a law that Finnish companies figure out a way to provide JUST 5% more comprehensive ACCESS as bad gummint?

It's not a price-ceiling, it's just making sure that companies with privileges (eg. being allowed to provide internet access through a network in a particular area) offer an affordable subscription instead of shafting a few people in order to milk the majority for all they're worth.

It's more like making sure that the only pharmacy in Bellybutton, Alabama, carries birth-control :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

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?

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.

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It's not a price-ceiling, it's just making sure that companies with privileges (eg. being allowed to provide internet access through a network in a particular area) offer an affordable subscription instead of shafting a few people in order to milk the majority for all they're worth.

It's more like making sure that the only pharmacy in Bellybutton, Alabama, carries birth-control :o

---

You know, if people were as informed about medicine as you are about economics, we'd still be living in the Stone Age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You know, if people were as informed about medicine as you are about economics, we'd still be living in the Stone Age.

---

Look man, maybe you should spend less time being an amateur economist and more time learning about Finland or something.

On a side note, you are as informed about medicine as people are about the Stone Age :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You know, if people were as informed about medicine as you are about economics, we'd still be living in the Stone Age.

---

You know, if people were as informed about economics as you are about medicine, we'd still be living in the Stone Age. With a lot less people. There would be no need for handwashing, vaccinations, sterile surgeries, or even elder care. Because no one would live beyond age 55.

He's right though, it is technically a price-ceiling, a ceiling so high it might as well not exist... but better safe than sorry I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

He's right though, it is technically a price-ceiling, a ceiling so high it might as well not exist... but better safe than sorry I guess.

---

Price ceilings are inherent in our daily lives, from sugar and corn to gas and oil; for food or fuel. None of these things would be available to the masses without some government intervention from the past.

It amazes me when people make blanket statements that break-through innovations should only come from the private sector, without acknowledging that federal funds made those huge things possible in the first place. From electricity grids to roads to microwaves to space travel.

I'd like someone to name one life changing technology that benefitted the whole world, without some federal tax dollars involved. Just one.

I suppose you can't blame him too much, it's not like price-ceilings can't fuck things up pretty badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I suppose you can't blame him too much, it's not like price-ceilings can't fuck things up pretty badly.

---

Anything can fuck up things pretty badly. Even Loki's precious free markets (Durr!™) and their counterpart.

I always wonder why Loki thinks that unrestrained freedom works, when humanity has shown time and again that it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If this was already a reality, there'd be no reason to create a law.

---

This, btw, was an interesting position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

This, btw, was an interesting position.

---

Maybe not for current people. A law that cedes to just 5% of a current population tells me they're looking forward and being rather pioneer about the whole thing.

Our US constitutional fathers tried the same type of thing about equality, in a time when the main driver was education via money. But many people had neither, because being educated was about having money, and it was a closed club to white men. Civil Wars are never civil but they always make a statement.

We've wasted a lot of time parsing the meaning of Man, Militia, and Guns. Or what is Is.

I'm confused where the "price ceiling below cost" claim came from.

Ask Loki.

No, don't!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

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).

---

Could you clarify?

Rand- The reason I'd like to know more details from Nessie is exactly because of the distinction you're trying to draw between a right to purchase and a right to have. The language and intent is important after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Could you clarify?

---

Yes

Will you clarify?

I fail to see the point

Some of us here have certainly spent a decent chunk of time explaining the inane and insane machinations of our native lands. Why not explain the details as you see them to us? I'm witholding judgement under the suspicion that this is more complicated than it's been translated.

It is more complicated in the sense that (Fuzzy can stop reading right here) we don't have founding fathers to fellate, the entire concept of rights seems to be outside the scope of the usual Murikan discourse. However I doubt any explanation on my part would engender more than points and laughs from the US right posters here, so why bother? I have accepted that socialism can never work for Murika because (IMO) you're a horribly failed and dysfunctional nation, similarly I'd expect you to extend the courtesy and not bother with the non-US neo-con world.

That's kind of harsh, I've certainly never made that judgement about your country. Ironically I was trying to withhold judgement and get more information...