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.

Comments

Re:Before people start complaining that its only 1

[sopssa]

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)

Same Reason that Telephone Service is Regulated

[reporter]

What Madrid is doing is basically what is being done in super-free market, the United States of America. American phone companies are required by state regulators to provide low-cost land-line phone service to citizens whom state laws consider to be indigent. This government subsidy is necessary because the phone is necessary to live adequately in modern society. The phone connects you to emergency services via 911. The phone connects you to the manager (who works you like a slave). The phone connects you to your family. The phone is nearly as important as food, shelter, and clothing.

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.

Re:Before people start complaining that its only 1

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:A serious question

[Idiomatick]

legal rights != human rights

Pretty big difference. In most countries there are cruelty to animals laws. This could be easily rewritten as an animal charter of rights to not have to go through torture. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Not a "right"!

[zach_the_lizard]

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.

Re:Not a "right"!

[commodore64_love]

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).)