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.

50 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Before people start complaining that its only 1mb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  2. 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 Walzmyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No it's not a right. It's a guarantee. "If you pay this contractor, we guarantee this contractor will provide this minimal service."

      If it were a right, then you would have a right to these people (the contractors) work, that's called slavery.

      It's the same thing with this so-called right to healthcare here in the states. You might have a right not to be denied service because of your skin color or country of birth but you do not have a "right" to the efforts of other individuals.

    6. Re:Not a "right"! by BeardsmoreA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Not a "right"! by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's not slavery any more than my federal and state taxes make me a slave. stop being stupid.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:Not a "right"! by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    9. Re:Not a "right"! by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    10. Re:Not a "right"! by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Not a "right"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:Not a "right"! by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    13. Re:Not a "right"! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    14. Re:Not a "right"! by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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
    17. Re:Not a "right"! by amplt1337 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    18. Re:Not a "right"! by dingen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    19. Re:Not a "right"! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It requires stealing money from your neighbors

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

      They believe taxation is "stealing from your neighbors" but wet themselves if there are potholes in the road or their garbage isn't picked up. Best of all, their preferred medium for expressing their views is the Internet.

      They also make those funny little faces that make them think they're looking all "John Galt" when they're really looking all "Pee Wee Herman". If you don't believe me, look at the contributors page of Reason Magazine.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. 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?

    21. Re:Not a "right"! by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    22. Re:Not a "right"! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:Not a "right"! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    24. Re:Not a "right"! by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    25. 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.

    26. Re:Not a "right"! by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    27. Re:Not a "right"! by garett_spencley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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 ?

    28. Re:Not a "right"! by The_Quinn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There cannot be a right that requires someone else to give you something. Any so-called right that legalizes master-slave relationships is immoral.

  3. Re:Before people start complaining that its only 1 by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  4. Same Reason that Telephone Service is Regulated by reporter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  5. 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.

  6. Re:Legality by ChowRiit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Before people start complaining that its only 1 by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. 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.

  9. A serious question by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:A serious question by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  10. Re:Before people start complaining that its only 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Before people start complaining that its only 1 by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  12. Re:Beach front by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Soviet greenhouse planet, beach front property comes to you!

  13. Re:The right to broadband. by ickleberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Legality by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  15. 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?
  16. Re:Legality by PybusJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The answer is Spanish Law will apply in Spain. But, if Spain fail to enact their own legislation to enforce EU regulation then the EU may take the Spanish Government to court (not Spanish citizens).

    There are a number of such ongoing cases, including one against the UK government for failure to implement privacy laws (basically for failing to stop the use of Phorm by UK ISPs).

  17. Re:The right to broadband. by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  18. Form == Function by LKM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A good developer will attend to function first and form second.

    A function that is not exposed in a form users can understand might as well not exist at all.

  19. Re:Legality by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  20. 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.

    1. Re:Availability matters by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, it'll be interesting to see how they implement it.

      In my part of rural Spain, the only phone connection is either a Telefonica supplied "wireless" phone, or a mobile. The only sources of internet are by using a 3G dongle (at extortionate rates - not that broadband in Spain is even close to a reasonable price). Some places have WiMax service - but the speed is low, the monthly cap is lower and frankly, the reliability sucks - and the price is high.

      I would expect the implementation to be either one of these radio based technologies, which will provide the headline 1Mbps, but I'm not holding out any hope for a service that will allow me gigabytes per month of transfers.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons