Finland: Broadband Access is a Legal Right

[GGT]

First nation makes broadband access a legal right

July 1, 2010 11:10 a.m.


(CNN) -- Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband internet access a legal right for all citizens.

The legislation, which came into effect Thursday, forces telecom operators to provide a reasonably priced broadband connection with a downstream rate of at least one megabit per second (mbs) to every permanent residence and office, the Finnish government said in a statement.

"From now on a reasonably priced broadband connection will be everyone's basic right in Finland," said Finnish communications minister Suvi Linden. "This is absolutely one of the government's most significant achievements in regional policy and I am proud of it.

"I hope that people will make use of the opportunity and turn to telecom operators in the area they live."
The "universal service obligation" as it is known means broadband access is considered a staple commodity alongside services such as telephone and postal services, according to the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA).

FICORA said it had assigned 26 telecommunications companies as universal service providers across the nation. It said a monthly fee of Euros 30 to 40 (around $37 to $47) would be reasonable in most cases.
Finland is one of the world's most wired nations, and numbers corporations such as telecommunications giant Nokia among its successes.

Laura Vilkkonen, legislative counselor for the Ministry of Transport and Communications, told CNN in October 2009 that 95 percent of the population has some form of internet access.

Statistics released by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) for December 2009 put broadband penetration in Finland at 26.7 percent, compared to 26.4 per cent for the United States. The Netherlands and Denmark ranked equal first at 37.1 percent each.

A report issued by the European Union in November last year stated that 24 percent of the EU population had a broadband access line subscription in July 2009.

It added that 80 per cent of broadband lines in the EU had download speeds of two mbs or greater.

[coinich]

Demeaning to what the ideas of rights are. Also not the government's job to provide a luxury, letalone demand it be provided to all citizens' residences and businesses.

[Lewkowski]

Demeaning to what the ideas of rights are. Also not the government's job to provide a luxury, letalone demand it be provided to all citizens' residences and businesses.

Exactly! Europe proves itself to be dumb again.

[littlelolligagged]

Exactly! Europe proves itself to be dumb again.

Finland isn't all of Europe, any more than Maryland is all of the US.

Lewk proves himself to be dumb again.

[EmperorNorton]

Finland isn't in Europe.

[Aimless]

Look, they can afford it and they can do a good job of providing it. We're not talking about a third-world village like the US here

[coinich]

Having the ability to supply it =/= a reason to do so.

[Dreadnaught]

Was also going to post this. I agree, this demeans real rights and sets governments and businesses up for unexpected costs.

If a Finn rents a cabin in some isolated place, are they now going to have to sign a waiver for their right to Internet access? If the telcos go bankrupt or become obsolete, will they still be obligated to provide broadband services? Or will the government?

[Ominous Gamer]

It brings up an interesting point about information access. With more services and government related activites going online only, internet access is almost required if you're going to take part in your democracy. They have a democracy right?

Take Florida for example. We require food stamps, medicaid, WIC and cash assistance to go through an online application. There is no physical paperwork anymore. There are no access computers at any assistance offices. In fact the offices send the people needing to fill out the form to the library. Yet the library computers are on a time limit that doesn't allow the users to be online long enough to finish the form

Broadband access to every house may seem an extreme, but it may also be the cheapest, or easiest way to implement such a policy.

EDIT:
I would love to see an ISP even attempt to go out of business. The 100mb equipment most providers are upgrading to is both cheaper to purchase and operate than the equipment that provides the standard ~15mb. Yet the consumer price is 50-100% higher, solely because its "faster."

[EyeKhan]

See, Nessus isn't the only reason Finland rocks.

[Dreadnaught]

OG- Wouldn't just buying computers for paperwork use at government offices be a lot more efficient than guaranteeing broadband access to everyone as a national right?

When someone needs to fill out a form, you lend them a pen and a hard surface. You don't set them up in an office with a secretary and free coffee.

[Ominous Gamer]

OG- Wouldn't just buying computers for paperwork use at government offices be a lot more efficient than guaranteeing broadband access to everyone as a national right?

When someone needs to fill out a form, you lend them a pen and a hard surface. You don't set them up in an office with a secretary and free coffee.

You're not making sense, or you're not understanding. There is no longer any paperwork (at least for my example). Computers in the assistance offices (the few that remain are mainly used for personal interviews and check ups) would require the space, the security, the IT support, and the usual technology upkeep requirements.
Or you pass that all off to the public and the ISPs, making the whole thing an OEM wetdream. Allowing the government to push even harder at breaking into the digital age.


Not like this doesn't already happen in the US to certain degrees. When AT&T completed its last merger it was required to provide low cost broadband to everyone in its service areas.

[Dreadnaught]

So the government should pass off the costs of their electronic paperwork to individuals and companies? That's actually raising the barriers to entry for government services, then making someone else pay for it.

Make no mistake, I love accessible, electronic and digitally savvy government. I have a lot personally invested in just that kind of progress. But your justification here is whacked out.

[Ominous Gamer]

That's actually raising the barriers to entry for government services

That would all depend on how connected the country is, wouldn't it?

[GGT]

Their gov't would have a computer for people to use for application forms---it's a place of business. Cabins wouldn't count as a primary residence. Not sure what their homeless situation is like, but they'd have access at businesses.

They seem to be defining internet access as a basic utility, like postal or phone service, or electricity. For a small country like Finland that's already 95% connected, it sounds doable to expand it just 5% more.

I hope Nessie comes along to explain it better.

[Dreadnaught]

It's definitely doable, the question is does it deserve to be elevated to a right. After all, you don't have a right to phone service or electricity. They are regulated utilities, but you don't have a "right" to have it.

Unless there is some kind of massive mistranslation going on here.

[Hazir]

Lot's of big words again from the US right wing I see about something that's standard practise pretty much everywhere in the world for licensing.

[Nessus]

It's definitely doable, the question is does it deserve to be elevated to a right. After all, you don't have a right to phone service or electricity. They are regulated utilities, but you don't have a "right" to have it.

Unless there is some kind of massive mistranslation going on here.

Funny thing, this Internet thingy is just an addition to other information service rights we have, which used to include tellyphones and such. There's also a right to housing etc. in the constitution, which I'm sure further erodes some other rights or whatever the inane argument up there was.

[Hazir]

Most Americans reject codification of rights besides the classical ones. They aren't entirely wrong on that though, because with these newer social rights you create a category of rights that depend on affordability. No problem if the state is rolling in money, but what remains of your 'right to housing' or 'health care' if the government doesn't have the money to pay for it?

[Aimless]

Funny thing, this Internet thingy is just an addition to other information service rights we have, which used to include tellyphones and such. There's also a right to housing etc. in the constitution, which I'm sure further erodes some other rights or whatever the inane argument up there was.

Don't forget things like the right to quality healthcare, the right to a good education, etc. Disgusting

[EyeKhan]

Don't forget things like the right to quality healthcare, the right to a good education, etc. Disgusting

Look, you either go out and get this stuff yourself, or you're a socialist loser. Get it?

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.

#1. There is an ammendment system baked into the constitution . . . .

#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.

[Nessus]

All rights depend on affordability if we're gonna walk down that road

[Dreadnaught]

You can be a poor state and guarantee freedom or worship and speech like anyone else.

[Nessus]

You can be a poor state and guarantee freedom or worship and speech like anyone else.

Of course you can

[EyeKhan]

There was a nice nod on NPR this morning to this new Communist right in Finland. I had no idea how few people live there. Just 5+ million?

[Dreadnaught]

Explanify your doubts.

[RandBlade]

I think this is rather inevitable for almost all western nations eventually and as a 'right-winger' I'll have to actually disagree with my fellow right-wing Americans here. If a country is going down this road then I think this is the best way to do it.

The state is not paying for the internet. The state is saying that people should be able to buy access to it.

I have in the UK a 'right' to access to electricity, water, postal services etc which all fall under "universal service obligations". My electricity I get from a company named "Southern Electric", despite living in the North. When we move into our own home, we'll shop around for the best deal for electricity which could come from companies like "Scottish Power" (despite being in the north of England) or "British Gas" (despite seeking electricity, not gas), or "United Utilities" (whom I buy my water from). When I was a child, we could only get our electricity from "Manweb" (Manchester and North Wales Electricity Board) and our gas from British Gas because it was under a socialist, nationalised system. It all got privatised 20 years ago and now there is a lot of healthy competition, hence the stupid names because they're legacy from where they were and what they were doing when they got privatised. Like most modern nations now I can buy my electricity from any company I choose in a relatively free, capitalist market - which has improved the situation from 20 years ago - but the companies have universal service obligations as electricity is a basic need.

200 years ago, nobody would have considered electricity a basic need. At what point did it become necessary? 20 years ago few had heard of the internet let alone considered it a basic need, but its well on the way to becoming one now. At some point it'll be clear that it is. Luckily from the start its been provided by capitalist companies and not socialist state behemoths. I'd prefer it to stay that way and were the choice to be between a universal service obligation for the companies or nationalisation, I know which I'd choose.

[Khendraja'aro]

Hey, who takes this 'murican argument about eroding "rights" seriously? The cavemen over there don't even have a right to live (aka: unconditional access to healthcare).

[EyeKhan]

Hey, who takes this 'murican argument about eroding "rights" seriously? The cavemen over there don't even have a right to live (aka: unconditional access to healthcare).

Bootstraps, man. If you have the will to live, you'll live. Everyone else is just too damn lazy to work.

[Hazir]

Hey, who takes this 'murican argument about eroding "rights" seriously? The cavemen over there don't even have a right to live (aka: unconditional access to healthcare).

Actualy I do, it's bad to have laws you can't uphold.