Eki has the right to be online! [Archive]

View Full Version : Eki has the right to be online!

Mark

1st July 2010, 11:20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10461048.stm

Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.

From 1 July every Finn will have the right to access to a 1Mbps (megabit per second) broadband connection.

Finland has vowed to connect everyone to a 100Mbps connection by 2015.

In the UK the government has promised a minimum connection of at least 2Mbps to all homes by 2012 but has stopped short of enshrining this as a right in law.

The Finnish deal means that from 1 July all telecommunications companies will be obliged to provide all residents with broadband lines that can run at a minimum 1Mbps speed.

Eki

1st July 2010, 11:39

Now anthonyvop will come in and say that an internet connection is not a human right.

janneppi

1st July 2010, 11:43

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10461048.stm

The Finnish deal means that from 1 July all telecommunications companies will be obliged to provide all residents with broadband lines that can run at a minimum 1Mbps speed.
I wish.

At the moment I'm behind a mobile thingy (mokkula for the Finns) and since every other moron is also using the same mobile cell, I'm lucky to get a 30KB/s in, mostly this summer it's been around 5KB/s. :(

Dave B

1st July 2010, 11:44

So if you ban Eki you could go to prison? :p

Finland has vowed to connect everyone to a 100Mbps connection by 2015.
Makes our vaguely-promised 2 meg look rather pathetic, doesn't it?

In the UK, towns and cities tend to be served very well with most people able to get >10M should they require it. Cabled areas can quite happily get 50mpbs with higher speeds round the corner. It's the rural areas which tend not to get great connection speeds, indeed some villages can't get broadband at all and are stuck on dial-up. How does that situation compare in Finland?

While we're at it, what do people on this forum have? I'm in the UK and have 10mbps through cable, which seemed fine - excessive even - at first but now I'm finding myself downloading more and more HD content and seriously considering upgrading.

Eki

1st July 2010, 12:03

In the UK, towns and cities tend to be served very well with most people able to get >10M should they require it. Cabled areas can quite happily get 50mpbs with higher speeds round the corner. It's the rural areas which tend not to get great connection speeds, indeed some villages can't get broadband at all and are stuck on dial-up. How does that situation compare in Finland?

I don't know about cable, but here's a coverage map of wireless:

http://www.elisa.fi/kuuluvuus/

Seems that most of the Southern Finland can get max. 15M mobile 3G. All get at least 50kbps GSM except parts of Lapland.

Currently at home I have 1M mobile 3G. 15M is available. On cable up to 100M is available through the cable TV network.

Mark

1st July 2010, 12:18

It's the rural areas which tend not to get great connection speeds, indeed some villages can't get broadband at all and are stuck on dial-up. .

Which is why the universal provision is so important. Not having access to *any* kind of broadband connection is a disgrace considering the technology available in most places. Even my mobile can usually manage greater than 56k speeds!

I've seen news reports of companies who started out in small villages but had to move their premises into town for no other reason than they needed a fast internet connection.

chuck34

1st July 2010, 12:40

So since this is a right now, does that mean it has to be free? Or can the companies charge for services?

Mark

1st July 2010, 12:48

So since this is a right now, does that mean it has to be free? Or can the companies charge for services?

Not free, no. It just has to be available. Much in the same way as every home has the right to be connected to electricity and have water and sewage connections, but they still need to be paid for.

Storm

1st July 2010, 12:53

Ah to be a Finn.

Eki

1st July 2010, 12:54

So since this is a right now, does that mean it has to be free? Or can the companies charge for services?
No, not free, the companies can charge for services, but they have to charge everybody the same regardless of where in Finland you are. In theory it means that if you live in the wilderness with no one living near you within hundreds of miles and want a broadband, the companies have to provide you one for the same price they provide somebody in the downtown Helsinki even if it means they lose money.

Eki

1st July 2010, 13:12

If I understood this news correctly, the price hasn't got to be the same, just "reasonable" and they consider 30 to 40 € a month "reasonable":

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?hpt=T2&fbid=0w-3wtCZ_9K

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.

chuck34

1st July 2010, 13:25

Not free, no. It just has to be available. Much in the same way as every home has the right to be connected to electricity and have water and sewage connections, but they still need to be paid for.

Sounds fairly reasonable then. But I'm not sure that enshrining something like this as a "Human Right" is a good thing. It should be just like water and swage connections, needs to be done, but not a "Human Right".

Roamy

1st July 2010, 13:57

Eki
so cable tv, internet, phone is how much per mo? don't count mobile phones unless you have no land line.

Mark

1st July 2010, 14:03

Sounds fairly reasonable then. But I'm not sure that enshrining something like this as a "Human Right" is a good thing. It should be just like water and swage connections, needs to be done, but not a "Human Right".

I'm not sure it's a "Human Right" in the same way as a right to a fair trial etc. But it's a basic amenity all citizens should be able to access.

Tazio

1st July 2010, 14:06

Now anthonyvop will come in and say that an internet connection is not a human right.Does this mean the virtual Eki has more or less virtual internet capitol? :confused:

anthonyvop

1st July 2010, 14:11

Now anthonyvop will come in and say that an internet connection is not a human right.

Of course it isn't.

How is an internet connection a right?

Tazio

1st July 2010, 14:13

Eki

1st July 2010, 14:37

Eki
so cable tv, internet, phone is how much per mo? don't count mobile phones unless you have no land line.
Depends on the service and where you live.

Available for my home:

- Cable TV min (infrastructure + about 25 free channels) free.
- Cable TV max (above + about 50 pay channels (including 8 HD channels) about 135 €/mo.
- Several channel package options between min and max available.

- Internet (cable modem via the cable TV network max 100 Mbps) 14.90 €/mo

I can't find prices for land line phones. Maybe they don't sell them anymore? I don't have a land line neither at work nor at home, just cell phones.

Roamy

1st July 2010, 14:47

very good internet price
TV max is expensive

Eki

1st July 2010, 14:53

TV max is expensive
The basic package including the 8 HD channels and the 25 free channels is 14.90 €/mo . Then you may take 0 to 41 extra channels on top of that for 2.90 €/mo per channel.

Mark

1st July 2010, 15:32

I can't find prices for land line phones. Maybe they don't sell them anymore? I don't have a land line neither at work nor at home, just cell phones.

Quite honestly I would quite happily get rid of my land line and the £10 per month charge that goes with it (i.e. £120 per year), as I hardly ever use it and it's rare that we get a call on it. Mobiles do the job.

However digital TV providers such as Virgin and Sky create their packages in such a way that you basically have to have a land line phone! With cable, you have to have one, and that's pretty much that. With Sky if you don't have a phone they basically charge more for their other services to make it pretty much the same price!

PS. I just did a speed test on my phone and got a result of 1.62Mbps, which isn't bad for a 3G network I think, but it was noticeable during that the transfer rate dropped off quickly the longer the test ran, unlike through wifi where I got a speed of 10Mbps which suggests the wifi here is old as I get 60mbps when connected through a cable.

Dave B

1st July 2010, 16:50

Of course it isn't.

How is an internet connection a right?
Don't forget that some people use the internet for more than just a bit of fun. Or nekkid women :p

As I see things, it's possible to save a vast amount of money by managing your finances online, and the convenience of internet banking and shopping should not be underestimated - especially if you're housebound or have impairments which hinder you from wandering down the bank or the shops at will.

Not everybody would want to avail themselves of those options - my dad for example rejects the entire notion of internet shopping and as a result wastes a fortune on certain items - but he should have the right to internet access if he so wishes.

For may of us it's not a concern, but imagine you're a househound pensioner in the middle of nowhere who finds it impossible to get to the bank. It's only right and proper that they have the means to access their account online.

Brown, Jon Brow

1st July 2010, 16:58

Our connection is only 6.7 Mbps :dozey:

anthonyvop

1st July 2010, 19:48

For may of us it's not a concern, but imagine you're a househound pensioner in the middle of nowhere who finds it impossible to get to the bank. It's only right and proper that they have the means to access their account online.

So is a cell phone a right as well? Cable TV? How about a chauffeured Limo?

BTW You can still bank by mail is you are a housebound pensioner in the middle of nowhere.

Then again if you are a housebound pensioner why are you living in the middle of nowhere?

Eki

1st July 2010, 20:12

So is a cell phone a right as well? Cable TV? How about a chauffeured Limo?

BTW You can still bank by mail is you are a housebound pensioner in the middle of nowhere.

Then again if you are a housebound pensioner why are you living in the middle of nowhere?
How about the freedom of speech and the freedom to choose where you live? If Castro restricts the use of internet in Cuba and emigration from Cuba, it's OK and not violating their rights?

race aficionado

1st July 2010, 21:11

. . . this answer is worth waiting for . . . . .

Rollo

1st July 2010, 21:29

Sounds fairly reasonable then. But I'm not sure that enshrining something like this as a "Human Right" is a good thing. It should be just like water and swage connections, needs to be done, but not a "Human Right".

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25
Article 25 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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.

It might be covered in here, but then again as an American you don't actually have this right at law, and by the sounds of things probably don't want it either.

Tazio

1st July 2010, 21:52

Tomi

1st July 2010, 22:09

Here more and more public and other services can be done using internet, like for instance extend book loans from the library, so it's very much like Dave said earlier.

Eki

1st July 2010, 22:20

Here more and more public and other services can be done using internet, like for instance extend book loans from the library, so it's very much like Dave said earlier.
Or booking a dentist.

Hazell B

1st July 2010, 23:27

Or booking a dentist.

My horse's dentist isn't on line, so I call him. Or he calls me.
Nothing to do with the thread, but I just thought I'd mention the few of us who still use smoke signals, pigeons and telepathy rather than computers for everything :)

I even posted a cheque off this morning ...

Rollo

1st July 2010, 23:35

Painting.... Broad..brush ......U.S. Citizens......All....... :fasttalk: ;)
or was that directed only at vop :confused: :beer:

Well the truth is that the United States has never ratified the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights so that part is a statement of fact, but it is still specificaly directed at chuck34.

anthonyvop

2nd July 2010, 03:22

How about the freedom of speech and the freedom to choose where you live? If Castro restricts the use of internet in Cuba and emigration from Cuba, it's OK and not violating their rights?

Is that the best argument you can up with?

Castro restricts and prevents the majority of the Cuban people from having internet access.

I Finland was anybody restricted from internet access by the government?

In the US aside from certain convicted criminals nobody is denied access to the internet if they can afford it.

anthonyvop

2nd July 2010, 03:23

Tazio

2nd July 2010, 03:32

Well the truth is that the United States has never ratified the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights so that part is a statement of fact, but it is still specificaly directed at chuck34.

Thank you for that!
Speaking empirically I have to say you are right!
But more to the point, no one asked me for my "John Hancock" :(
Guilty by birth!! :wave: :arrows:

Mark

2nd July 2010, 07:55

So is a cell phone a right as well? Cable TV? How about a chauffeured Limo?

BTW You can still bank by mail is you are a housebound pensioner in the middle of nowhere.

Then again if you are a housebound pensioner why are you living in the middle of nowhere?

I think it's not so much banking, but the government is trying to move many of its services online, mostly so they can continue their vendetta against Post Office branches. So making sure everyone has an internet connection actually saves the government money in the long run.

F1boat

2nd July 2010, 08:13

Now anthonyvop will come in and say that an internet connection is not a human right.

ah, he never fails to disappoint :)

Storm

2nd July 2010, 08:37

very good internet price
TV max is expensive

its crazy really!
no wonder even odykas is crying abt pay tv in Greece all the time.

perhaps India is the best then in terms of cable/dish tv prices..I pay about Rs 320 (~6 euros or 8 USD) per month for my dth connection which has close to 350 channels (even though most are crap!)

Internet is about 3 times the price of that (for my connection atleast) but includes price of land line phone.

Mark

2nd July 2010, 08:51

We pay £31 per month to Sky. For that we get a Sky+ (recording box) with a subscription to the basic channels package (i.e. most things except Sport and Movies), our land line with free evening and weekend calls. Plus 20Mbps internet connection. However the internet is limited to 2Gb transfer per month, if you want unlimited transfer it's an extra £7.50 per month.

J4MIE

2nd July 2010, 09:04

I think it's a good thing and shows how important the internet is these days. At home we get 2Mb I think which is the fastest as our village is about 2km or so from the nearest exchange in the next village. I don't mind as I find myself downloading less and less these days.

Eki

2nd July 2010, 09:31

Is that the best argument you can up with?

Castro restricts and prevents the majority of the Cuban people from having internet access.

I Finland was anybody restricted from internet access by the government?

In the US aside from certain convicted criminals nobody is denied access to the internet if they can afford it.
So, if the government restricts the use of internet, it's violating people's rights and not OK? But if private companies restrict the use of internet by refusing to sell to everyone at a same or at least at a reasonable price, it's OK and not restricting people's rights, because the use of internet is not a right?

In Cuba, everybody can leave Cuba if they can build a raft, brave the sea and avoid coast guards. It's more difficult than to people in most countries, but it can be done if you're ready to pay the price.

Eki

2nd July 2010, 09:34

My horse's dentist isn't on line, so I call him. Or he calls me.
Nothing to do with the thread, but I just thought I'd mention the few of us who still use smoke signals, pigeons and telepathy rather than computers for everything :)

I even posted a cheque off this morning ...
So, you did cheque the mouth of the gift horse?

Mark

2nd July 2010, 09:38

chuck34

2nd July 2010, 13:38

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25
Article 25 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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.

It might be covered in here, but then again as an American you don't actually have this right at law, and by the sounds of things probably don't want it either.

You are right, I don't want that document to cover me. Too broad, and too open to abuses. Especially that last statement "lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control". So the world economy goes bust and I loose my job. That is "beyond my control". So now who MUST provide me with my food, clothing, housing, and everything else? After all, those things are now a right that can not be denied to me. That is socialisim at it's very core. I know most won't see it that way, and I'm sure I'll get blasted by most on here, but that's what it is and I won't back down from that.

Human Rights are about access to processes. Human Rights do not guaruntee results. The UN document reads more like a list of results you MUST have. I prefer the Human Rights as defined in the US. Particularly the way that George Mason defined them in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (later "adopted" by Thomas Jefferson for the US Declaration of Independence).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights
(sorry for the wiki link :( )

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Now to bring that back to the original topic. I do think that it is a good thing that the Finnish government has said that all people should have ACCESS to high speed internet. That is fine and dandy especially since they are not forcing companies to GIVE that access away. The problem I see with it is that it has been enshrined as a "human right". I'm sorry it is not a Human Right, it's a good idea, and there should be a law about the access, but it is NOT a Human Right. By saying it is, I fear that abuses could be carried out, and the government could FORCE companies to GIVE away their connections. Afterall it may be "beyond my control" that I can't afford the "outragous" prices they are charging. And forcing anyone (even a company) to give away their product goes against their actual Human Right to property.

Mark

2nd July 2010, 14:14

Remember we are talking about a 'legal right' here, not a 'human right'.

anthonyvop

2nd July 2010, 15:30

So, if the government restricts the use of internet, it's violating people's rights and not OK? But if private companies restrict the use of internet by refusing to sell to everyone at a same or at least at a reasonable price, it's OK and not restricting people's rights, because the use of internet is not a right?

Exactly.

An individual doesn't have to sell you anything if they don't want to. And nobody has the right to tell anyone how much they can charge,

In Cuba, everybody can leave Cuba if they can build a raft, brave the sea and avoid coast guards. It's more difficult than to people in most countries, but it can be done if you're ready to pay the price.

No. It is against Cuban law to leave without permission.

You really have no clue do you?

anthonyvop

2nd July 2010, 15:33

Remember we are talking about a 'legal right' here, not a 'human right'.

You mean "Civil" rights as a opposed to Human rights.

The Only Human Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. All other rights come at the expense of another person's right.

Eki

2nd July 2010, 15:51

You mean "Civil" rights as a opposed to Human rights.

The Only Human Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. All other rights come at the expense of another person's right.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness also come at the expense of another person's right. For example the other person can't have the right to keep you as a slave, because of your right for liberty. Or your existence might make some other person unhappy, and therefore your right for life violates his right for pursuit of happiness.

Eki

2nd July 2010, 15:58

Exactly.

An individual doesn't have to sell you anything if they don't want to.
Then the government on behalf of the people has right to say they can't sell to anybody in their jurisdiction, if they don't sell to everybody. Then you have the right to either quit the business or obey the law.

And nobody has the right to tell anyone how much they can charge,

The government has the right if the people want them to have.

One example of this is the Uniform Small Loan Law in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_shark

Newspapers after the turn of the century were filled with stories about the plight of debtors who were being mauled by the loan sharks. Before the First World War, a progressive coalition emerged to fight on behalf of these consumers. This fight culminated in the drafting of the Uniform Small Loan Law, which brought into existence a new class of licensed lender. The model statute mandated consumer protections and capped the interest rate on loans of $300 or less at 3.5% a month or the equivalent of 42% a year. Its aim was to establish a reputable class of lenders that could satisfy the demand of loan shark victims at a substantially reduced rate. The law was enacted, first in several states in 1917, and was adopted by all but a handful of states by the middle of the twentieth century.[5]

anthonyvop

2nd July 2010, 19:02

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness also come at the expense of another person's right. For example the other person can't have the right to keep you as a slave, because of your right for liberty. Or your existence might make some other person unhappy, and therefore your right for life violates his right for pursuit of happiness.

Are you really that dense or do I just blame the Finnish education system?

anthonyvop

2nd July 2010, 19:02

Then the government on behalf of the people has right to say they can't sell to anybody in their jurisdiction, if they don't sell to everybody. Then you have the right to either quit the business or obey the law.

The government has the right if the people want them to have.

One example of this is the Uniform Small Loan Law in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_shark

No they don't. I reject those actions. Just because some government's are doing it means it is right.

Eki

2nd July 2010, 20:17

Are you really that dense or do I just blame the Finnish education system?
Blame Canada.

Eki

14th November 2010, 12:12

I just got a free 2M/2M cable connection. It can be upgraded to 10M/2M for 9.90 €/mo, 30M/2M for 14.90 €/mo and 100M/5M for 19.90 €/mo.

airshifter

14th November 2010, 21:04

I just got a free 2M/2M cable connection. It can be upgraded to 10M/2M for 9.90 €/mo, 30M/2M for 14.90 €/mo and 100M/5M for 19.90 €/mo.

Isn't that a lesser value than you already had with your existing non mandantory connection? In either case it's still a good rate compared to most I've seen here in the US.

Eki

14th November 2010, 21:49

Isn't that a lesser value than you already had with your existing non mandantory connection? In either case it's still a good rate compared to most I've seen here in the US.
It's still non-mandatory, it doesn't say you must use the internet, even if you get it for free. And I had a 1M 19.90 €/mo mobile 3G connection, which I still have, except its price has dropped to 9.90 €/mo.

glauistean

15th November 2010, 04:01

Now anthonyvop will come in and say that an internet connection is not a human right.

Oh, more socialism I'd expect. "Who is going to pay for all this commie stuff?"