Slashdot Mirror


Spain Codifies the "Right To Broadband"

Reader adeelarshad82 writes to lets us know that Spain has now codified a "Right to Broadband," thus following the lead of Finland. Spain's industry minister announced that citizens will have a legal right from 2011 to be able to buy broadband Internet access of at least 1 Mb/sec at a regulated price wherever they live. The telecoms operator holding the so-called "universal service" contract would have to guarantee it could offer "reasonably" priced broadband throughout Spain.

15 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Not a "right"! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not a "right" to anything. These people need to look up the definition and history of what a "right" is.

    This is merely a law that regulates the Internet providers, requiring them to offer service to everybody for a regulated price. That's a regulation on the business side, not a "right" on the consumer's side. There is a pretty big difference. If it were a "right", it would not cost anything.

    We have similar laws. For example, within certain geographical limits, my local utility is required to offer me electricity at a regulated rate, no matter who I am. It's exactly the same kind of law. But that doesn't mean I have a "right" to electricity! If I get too far behind on my bill it can get shut off. It's merely the ability to buy something, not a "right" to it. If I had a "right" to electricity, nobody could legally shut it off.

    1. Re:Not a "right"! by Razalhague · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a right to buy.

    2. Re:Not a "right"! by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a right to get at least a 1mbps internet connection at reasonable price. It is still a right.

    3. Re:Not a "right"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then, all the spanish constitution is wrong.
      It says things like "you have the right of a worthy house"
      (meaning that the government will try that everybody should be able to buy a acceptable house)

      (Sorry for my horrible english).

    4. Re:Not a "right"! by dingen · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I had a "right" to electricity, nobody could legally shut it off.

      I don't know about the situation in your country, but here in the Netherlands your water supply is not free, but you also cannot be cut off, because every citizen has the right to running water in their house. The same thing goes with gas during winter, because you cannot deny people the ability to warm their homes, even if they don't pay for it.

      Education is another example. It's not only a right, it's even mandatory for children under 16, even though there is a fee to have your kid in a school.

      Having the right to something doesn't mean you get it for free.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    5. Re:Not a "right"! by dingen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obviously yes. You get into a world of hurt if you don't pay your bills. You could even let things get so much out of hand they will take a portion of your salary to pay for your unpaid bills. The fact you're never denied service doesn't mean the problems don't stack up.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    6. Re:Not a "right"! by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually I was saying they are NOT rights. They are privileges. The English language has somewhere around 20,000 words... let's use the proper words with the proper meaning. :-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Not a "right"! by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do know that fox was sued, and the courts ruled that they are not obliged to tell the truth in their "news", right?

    8. Re:Not a "right"! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Informative

      >>>This is an important illustration of the Rule: "Libertarians are the stupidest people on the planet."

      STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I'm not Libertarian. If you want to address me, then address ME, not some trumped-up stereotype you have in your head. That makes you no better than if you said, "C64love is French therefore he must have voted for Sarkozy." Stop prejuding people based upon stereotypes. Anyway.....

      I work my ass off earning money, as do nearly-all my neighbors. That's OUR money. We earned it. Why should we have to give-up our sweat & labor to somebody else? That's no different than if that person held me at gunpoint and mugged me. The only difference is he's using the government as his gun.

      And no I don't think "all" taxes are theft. Taxes that are universally beneficial to every citizen, like funds for police to protect homes, are just fine with me. Also constitutional.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Not a "right"! by Monsuco · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do know that fox was sued, and the courts ruled that they are not obliged to tell the truth in their "news", right?

      Actually the case your thinking of decided whether or not the term "Fair and Balanced" was subject to trademark by Newscorp. (Fox's parent corporation). Among the court's rulings were that perceptions of bias don't have any impact on whether or not the phrase is subject to trademark.

      Or it is possible that you are simply refering to some threat of a suit over slander. Most news agencies are subject to these occasionally. Courts will generally just point out that slander cannot be used to usurp the first amendment. Fox has as much a right to present right wing views as CNN and NBC have to present left wing views.

  2. Re:Legality by sopssa · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you break laws, your rights can be taken away. If you kill someone you will be put to prison, and clearly you lose some of your rights then. For example your EU given right to move, live and work freely within EU area might be a little hard to do from prison.

    So if those three strikes law will ever get passed, this would probably be the same kind of thing. But EU still cannot force those laws in every country, they can only try to push them to be made laws.

  3. Re:Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    First, the Lisbon treaty is far from being hated. Most people are in fact pretty indifferent about it, and a sizeable percentage of the population (especially the more informed art) actually support it. Second, it doesn't give anyone a carte blanche to do anything, I'd suggest you actually read the treaty before making such wild (and completely ridiculous) statements.

    Also, "the EU" doesn't want to do anything. Some members of the european commission have expressed sympathy for cutting off offenders, the european parliament is opposed to it. But that question has nothing to do with what the article speaks about, since everything that the spanish government does is to force the major telcos to offer a 1MB connection at a "reasonable" price everywhere in the country. If you can't or don't want to pay, you still get nothing. This wouldn't contradict any law to cut off offenders either. It's effectively the same as with a phone line, the major telcos are forced to offer you a phone line anywhere in the country, but if you don't pay your bill you can still be cut off.

  4. Re:Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    First and foremost, the EU is not a person, and certainly not the devilish one in your imagination.

    Now, I don't know the details, but I seriously doubt anything in the Lisbon treaty (that EU countries' governments have signed) that allows the EU Parliament to arbitrarily dispose of existing laws.
    And, the parliament is surely accountable to somebody: the people of the UE. That's enough for me.

    Finally, you surely have many rights that can be suspended (temporally at least) if you become a law offender. I fail to see anything different in this case. So, to answer your final question: both.

  5. Re:Legality by Hackie_Chan · · Score: 3, Informative

    While I strongly disagree with everything you claimed and find it to actually have no relevance to this discussion, let me point out that since 1963 it has been virtually been agreed to that European Union law is supreme to member state law. Here's the verdict:

    By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the member states and which their courts are bound to apply.

    By creating a community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacityof representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the states to the community, the Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves ..

    --

    What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
  6. Availability matters by lurker412 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is hardly a matter of human rights, but it is a significant step forward for many Spaniards who live in rural areas where the only current broadband option is very expensive (and not very reliable) satellite service. Although the article doesn't mention it, it will likely mean that faster service will also be available in those areas. Telefonica's basic DSL service in Madrid these days is 6Mbs.