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.
Don't blame the Spanish for setting a relatively 'low' speed requirement, blame the modern slew of Web developers who insist on bloating their pages with graphics, animation and JavaShit that only their own Core 2 Trio can handle. Blame the guys who insist on using verbose protocols without compression, blame the guys who maintain that 'Web applications' are the past, present and future. Using a web application makes as much sense as using a satellite phone to talk to the guy standing next to you
Give modern hipster web devs more bandwidth and they *will* abuse the shit out of it to make their sites look ever so slightly better than the next guy's site, but it's all fluff. I actually know some guys developing a 'web app' where you can upload videos to have them converted into another format. Which I must say is a nice novelty or even somewhat useful if everyone on your 10GbE lan has a shitty machine except for one high end server but kids these days are so dumb that they would rather use one of these web converters than to download something and actually minimise their browsers for two seconds while they use it.
Maybe I'm answering to a flamebait, but theres nothing wrong with web applications. Many people want to have their email in webmail instead of using a client. Many people write to forums, news sites and sites like slashdot instead of newsgroups (as you seem to do too). Many people are perfectly fine using twitter and facebook for communicating (facebook even has that IM "client"). And because bandwidth is considerably cheap now a days (well in some countries at least, and it's getting there everywhere too), it becomes easier for people to upload a video file to a web service to convert it to another format than to download all the required codecs and find a software that can do it. Remember that majority of people aren't geeks.
That doesn't mean there's no desktop application alternatives and that you couldn't use them. I do for email, IM and many more things because it suits me better. But it doesn't mean other people couldn't do otherwise.
If you do not like those web applications developed by "modern hipster web devs", just don't use them and let people who like them use.
(and 1mbps is the minimum guaranteed speed in the news)
With the coming of age of the Internet, it will soon be as important as phone service. With the Internet, you can get legal information about registering your vehicle, and about smog-check stations, about filing a complaint with the relevant state agency. You can get information about universities. You can check whether your jury group is required to appear in court on a particular day.
10 years ago, the Internet was an exciting fad. Now, the Internet is an indispensable tool for living in modern society.
Of course, the best use of the Internet is to read articles on Slashdot.
Everything's hated by someone, and I'm fairly sure the Lisbon Treaty doesn't give the EU "carte blanche". I freely admit I know relatively little about the Lisbon Treaty, but I do know that unjustified hyperbole isn't going to help your argument.
You've confused efficiency with convenience.
A good developer will attend to function first and form second. Part of function is efficiency.
A bad developer barely even understands the concept of efficiency and function is frequently their last priority - just barely enough of a requirement to justify the site in the first place.
Look at slashdot for fuck's sake - you can't even metamod without javascript.
Like we need fucking javascript to click a fucking radio button for good/bad/no-rating?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Last year, Spain granted human rights to apes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14mon4.html
Does this mean apes also have the right to broadband? And please, no jokes about Nigerian scammers.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
a good web developer focuses on form _and_ function. In web development space, at least, they are equally important. things have to look as good as well as they perform. why is it that people always think it has to be one or the other.
maybe at slashdot at least, people here generally prefer the function part.
"A good developer will attend to function first and form second."
Depends on the application...
"Part of function is efficiency."
And part of efficiency/functionality is form.
Seriously, what a pile of Bee Ess. I always lol at these posts aspiring to some sort of utopian ultra-connected future. Seriously, this interweb thing is just a network that sends bits around the place (Now with added censorship!), not a freaking replacement for real life even though some people see it as such.
The Lisbon Treaty is self amending. There does not need to be another vote for anything by the people. I think that qualifies as "carte blanche" for them to do what they like.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
All of this is nit picking over the definition of the word 'right'. It has more than one meaning! Generally, the precise meaning is determined by who we are saying is 'giving' the right - and in the case of 'basic human rights' we usually imply that either 'the natural order of things' or $DEITY 'gave' the rights. All rights do not have to be innate though - I can contractually give you a right of access across my land. In the case of TFA we are talking about a government / constitutionally granted right. Ok? Can we all stop arguing semantics now? Kthx.
Have you actually seen a group of teens in Starbucks these days. They don't talk to each other anymore, they Twitter the person across the table via their mobile.
Jesus, I can't even have a conversation with my wife without getting "put on hold with the hand" while she answers that "oh-so-important" text message ... and she's old enough to know better !
We might still be living in the real world, but we communicate in cyberspace.
I'd say that reality is getting closer to the GP's view than you appreciate.
it's not slavery any more than my federal and state taxes make me a slave. stop being stupid.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
If I had a "right" to electricity, nobody could legally shut it off.
A "right" doesn't imply at all that it can't be taken away under some circumstances (as a matter of fact, I've heard US has the biggest population of such people, at least among developed countries)
One that hath name thou can not otter
This is not a "right" to anything. These people need to look up the definition and history of what a "right" is.
It entirely depends on what sort of philosophy you happen to believe in. Religious people can claim that they have rights, and that they are derived from the existence of their god(s). Others have attempted to create systems of rights that are entirely objective, independent of any deity or supernatural forces. Debates on this have been raging for millenia between all sorts of greater and lesser philosophers. Immanuel Kant, for example, claimed to derive natural rights from reason alone. Legalistic individuals could also say our rights are exactly what the laws say they are.
SSC
Wrong, actually. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean your nanny state has to bus you wherever you want to go to vent your spleen, build you a platform, buy you a bullhorn, and dragoon a bunch of losers into listening to you stammer, ramble, and make an ass of yourself.
Or, what if your declaration of independence asserts that you have a right to life. That doesn't mean your nanny state has to give you an armored car so nobody shoots you, a chauffeur so you don't hit a tree while you're texting, and a bulletproof vest for when you are shopping or watching the opera. They don't have to stop traffic so nobody can collide with you. They don't have to clothe and feed you so you don't die of exposure or starve to death. They don't have to wipe your ass so flies don't gather and give you a disease. They don't have to watch you 24x7 and come and put you on life support every time you overdose on some self indulgence, let alone stop you doing it in the first place.
The right to broadband mentioned in the article says that no matter where you live, somebody has to OFFER to sell you broadband at a reasonable price. That's a DAMN sight more than you get in the U.S. on this subject.
Wrong! It says, literally: "All the Spanish people have the right to enjoy decent and adequate housing" That doesn't mean you have the right to OWN one.
Yesterday I heard people saying it's okay for President Obama to block FOX's access to the white house press pool. They said "FOX has a right to freedom of the press. They don't have the right to access." Couldn't the same argument be made about internet? You have the right to buy any product you want, but that doesn't mean you have a right to broadband access. Everyone already had dialup access. Thoughts? Objections?
(No this is not a troll. This is the Socratic method (asking questions; making people think).)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
A function that is not exposed in a form users can understand might as well not exist at all.
I only have 0.7 Mbit/sec. I don't consider my rights to have been violated. High-speed access is a *luxury* not a right, same as having an Honda Acura instead of a cheap Honda econocar is a luxury not a right.
That is your opinion. However, in Spain and in Finland They The People have chosen otherwise.
However, that concept stems from the idea that rights are a human concept which people decide everyone is entitled to, not something which all men have because another man interpreting a possible non-existant man in the sky said so.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Well there are misdemeanors, like public intoxication, petty theft, evading arrest etc, and then there are felonies like murder, rape, arson, selling state secrets, etc. Two very different classes of crimes and the second class (felonies) demonstrate you don't desire to work within the system and actively work against the greater good - in essence denouncing their citizenship. Technically they're still american citizens, but they lose their ability to sway public offices with their vote.
moox. for a new generation.
No, a similar argument couldn't be made. I have a right to free speech however I do not have the right to libel anybody I wish. I have the right to swing my fist, but it stops at somebody else's nose.
Fox News has a right to free speech, but they don't have the right to force people on the air so that they can engage in their style of sleazy news reporting.
And it's not really the same at all, not even close, Fox News doesn't further the discourse in this country. Whereas people really do need to have broadband to properly participate in the nation. It's difficult enough to keep up with the affairs of state when things are continuously being moved over to the internet if you don't have a decent connection. Especially resources which are bandwidth intensive. This should be something that we've done in the US, as soon as government services started to migrate online.
I guess I should explain this better. Let's say you have a $100,000/year salary. The first ~$40,000 is not yours. It belongs to the government and while you are earning that first $40K you are a slave to Uncle Sam.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>Nobody is forced to work - just that if you do, part of the condition is that you have to pay a tax
This argument presumes the government existed first, the people later, and that government "gives" us our jobs, and ~40% is the fee for that privilege.
I have a differing view - the people were first, converting our body's labor to property is a natural right, and the government's officials should be thanking us for *allowing* them to have jobs, rather than fire the whole lot of them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It makes no logical sense to say that an innate quality of the human body can be removed.
This is the fundamental fallacy of the doctrine of innate rights.
Any actual part of the human body can be removed. People can be born without them, they can become defective and degrade over time. None of those properties apply to rights (as you're conceiving them), which means they're non-corporeal. In fact, there's no objective way to demonstrate that they exist at all. If I make the claim that every man has a Y chromosome, there is objective proof, with some edge cases that don't apply. If I make the claim that every man has the right of free speech & access to information, there can be no objective proof.
There is no reliable basis upon which to determine that a "natural right" exists as an objective property of nature. As a demonstration, try to disprove the existence of a right you do not believe in, such as the right of every man to have three wives if he wishes.
The only way "natural rights" make sense is if we understand the term "natural right" to mean "a legal right to which I think every person should be entitled." There is no way to remove the subjectivity from that statement, and that's okay. At the end of the day, we make our decisions based on what rights we, subjectively, think people should have. It's just better not to give them grand airs as some universal property of nature, rather than reflecting part our system of preferences (which we're ready to defend by force of arms).
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
There is nothing wrong with paying taxes and getting a nice country to live in in return for it.
If you truly live in a country where the government steals your money in the form of taxes and gives its citizens nothing in return for it, then it's definately time to leave.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
My home town had to pay to provide police protection for a KKK demonstration.
Yes. The government has a job to protect people from being beaten or killed. It protects KKK members' right to life. The government does NOT have the job to steal money from your neighbors and give the KKK Leader a free podium or a free house. Such a thing would be theft of the neighbors' labor, and an infringement of *their* rights
Also police protection is something that benefits every citizen, and thus legitimate. Everyone pays but also everyone benefits. Giving the KKK Leader a free podium, or me a free broadband hookup, only benefits those few persons, and therefore illegitimate theft of money
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
No, you are confusing rights with privileges. A true right cannot be "granted", it just exists. In our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence, for example, it is noted that our actual "rights" are intrinsic to ourselves. They do not come from government, and government does not have authority to take them away.
Something that can be given (and subsequently taken away) is a privilege, not a right.
It's not a "belief", it's an insistence. Certainly it is a product of the society, but at the same time, society is molded by the concept.
We, the citizens of the United States, insist that we have certain rights by virtue of our mere existence as human beings. We don't "believe" we do based on some abstract morality from above (well, some do, but they are rather the exception). We INSIST that we have those rights. And we are willing to go to war over that concept. Neither men in the sky or any other kind of "belief" system need be involved. It is just a set of values that we have chosen to stand behind.
In the common usage of english, a right may be inalienable (such as Constitutional rights) or granted (by law or contract).
That may not be the usage you (or I for that matter) prefer, but until one of us becomes the official keeper of the english language, we'll have to deal with the language as used rather than as prescribed.
Of course it's okay for Obama to block Fox', or anybody else's, access to the White House press pool. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee access, it just allows people to say and print what they've got. This isn't a matter of an inherent right to be in the press pool or my underwear drawer or wherever.
Similarly, Spain's decision isn't a matter of inherent rights. They're creating a legal right to broadband access, just like in most civilized places people have a legal right to electrical and phone service. In most places, people don't have the legal right to broadband access, just like in less developed areas they don't have the right of access to buy electricity.
Yes, you could look at it as an obligation on the providers: if you provide electricity in the US, you're required to supply everybody, including the unprofitable, at normal rates. If you don't like that, you don't have to be in the business. (On the other hand, the Public Utilities Commission, or equivalent, will allow you to charge rates so that you can be profitable.) It generally works well for electricity and phone service. I see no reason to think it won't for broadband.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Nobody is forced to work"
If you don't work you die. I mean that in the most fundamental way possible. Assume you and your family are stranded on a desert island. How do you survive ? By our nature we are given life but we must engage in certain actions in order to sustain it. That action is productive labour, or "work."
If you don't work, but you are able to sustain your life, it can only be through the productive efforts of others. Someone has to produce your food, your clothing, your shelter etc. So while another human being may not be coercing you into working, that reduces down to: no one forces you to live.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everyone should be making their own food and clothing. That's the beauty of trade. Each person specializes and produces what they are the best at, and then exchanges those goods or services with others who produce what they need to survive. It's not only fair but it has lead to the development and distribution of countless comforts that we enjoy today, not to mention cheap food, clothing, housing, clean water etc.
Anyway, I know that when I spend the day working I don't do it so that you may have the benefit of eating. When the results of my work are taken from me then it is slavery. If I don't work, I die. So I work, and then part of those efforts are taken from me. How is that not slavery ?
There cannot be a right that requires someone else to give you something. Any so-called right that legalizes master-slave relationships is immoral.
Mine is Good