Slashdot Mirror
Is Mobile Broadband a Luxury Or a Human Right?
concealment sends this quote from an article at CNN:
"Moderating a discussion on the future of broadband, Mashable editor-in-chief Lance Ulanoff tossed a provocative question to the audience: 'By quick show of hands, how many out there think that broadband is a luxury?' Next question: 'How many out there think it is a human right?' That option easily carried the audience vote. Broadband access is too important to society to be relegated to a small, privileged portion of the world population, Hans Vestberg, president and CEO of Ericsson, said during the discussion. Dr. Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, echoed Vestberg's remarks. 'We need to make sure all the world's inhabitants are connected to the goodies of the online world, which means better health care, better education, more sustainable economic and social development,' Touré said."
One must be careful about diluting the word "right." Leave it at 3, and protect them fiercely.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
It's a crowd -- ask them if bacon is a Human Right and you'll get the same response.
Oh spare us the human "rights" that involve other people paying for the stuff you want.
This is about the dumbest article that I've ever seen on slashdot. Kudos.
A luxury or a human right. What there isn't a middle ground here?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
IMO-- Lets first make food a right (and access to clean water, air, etc) and then let's talk about owning a laptop and broadband as a fundamental human right. Till then this sort of thing comes off as very first world centric.
Basic human rights are something that you have that can be taken from you in the absense of liberty, not an entitlement that has to be taken from someone else via tax or other public incentive
It's not a right, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I think societies will find that the benefits of setting it up are worth more than the cost.
Rights are only appropriately applied to liberties. You never have the right to someone else's property or labor. Goods and services are not something you can have a "right" to.
Access may be a compelling social good but it is absurd to call it a right.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Fundamental human rights should be limited to the basics. If we expand the definition of fundamental human right to include ownership of a high-tech device that did not even exist 20 years ago, we really miss the point.
It's a luxury stupid.
50 years from now people will reminisce about cablemodem "party lines" and such, but just because a luxury is cheap, does not make it a human right.
You have a inalienable human right to speak and to listen, but not to be heard (by whatever means of conveyance is completely irrelevant).
Conveyance beyond your own two feet, larynx and lungs, is a luxury. Plain and simple.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
which political part wins the election and what kind of companies contribute to that party. Got it?
There is a pretty wide disparity between "Luxury" and "Basic human right."
I'd hardly call indoor plumbing, 99.9% uptime electricity, or interstate highways to be "basic human rights," but they're pretty much essential for an modern, industrial society/economy.
It's like electricity: most of the modern world needs it, but it is neither a luxury nor a right.
This is the silliest of false dichotomies. It's not a luxury because it's so widely and cheaply available. It's not a human right because it's a proper commodity like everything else. Not everything that is desirable is a human right.
Here is a bunch of "rights" for you, fresh from the 1936 USSR constitution.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
I'm glad to hear so many championing common sense. Of course it isn't a right. No one has a right to other people's property or the fruits of other people's labor, and that's what network connectivity of all kinds is.
Clean food, and water. Free basic education. A safe place to live. Those as the basic human rights - IMO
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
http://water.org/water-crisis/water-facts/sanitation/
More than 3.4 million people die each year from water, sanitation, and hygiene-related causes.
http://water.org/water-crisis/water-facts/water/
and food prices are volatile, but steadily increasing:
http://www.heifer.org/blog/2011/06/rising-food-prices-starve-or-sacrifice.html
Or an addiction.
Human right is no more about broadband than knowledge is about paper.
Human rights should purely revolve about principles that one person shouldn't oppress another one.
If we say that having certain material, economic goods is a right, that means someone is obligated to provide it to you for free if you do not have it.
But obligating others to provide for you is oppression.
So are you going to pay for it?
When ever someone says "Human Right" it usually translates to I want you to pay for it so I can use it.
"Human Rights" should be limited to ones that don't cost money for other people.
Like breathing, or most of the US Bill of Rights.
Like the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
"Broadband access is too important to society to be relegated to a small, privileged portion of the world population,Hans Vestberg, president and CEO of Ericsson, said during the discussion."
In the USA, if you are poor, you can get free internet access at the library.
In other countries without internet access, well, they probably don't have access to other things as well, like books or music, etc.
Only in nutville does a right mean using force to get someone else to give you something they have for free.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Are we talking about broadband like home internet, or "mobile" broadband like phones and tablets?
In either case, I don't believe they are a "right", they are a luxury. Hell, even electricity isn't a "right", try not paying your bill for a couple months.
If I was making a wage and pension rolling out networks, I'd lobby to make it a right that I'd have a job and pension forever too.
The TV makers union wants HDTV to be a right as well.
* Unlimited healthcare
* Food, clothing, and shelter
* Unlimited transportation
The trouble with all of these, and Broadband, is that there isn't enough soup to put in everybody's bucket.
Or, to put it another way, unlimited broadband as a right is a lovely dream, but who has calculated what the actual cost of providing it is and who would pay the price for all?
FTFS: "By quick show of hands, how many out there think that broadband is a luxury?' Next question: 'How many out there think it is a human right?
Actually exercising their human rights is a luxury for the vast majority of people in the world.
On the other hand, the right to enjoy luxuries is also being curtailed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Thinking longer term helps you understand the difference between a necessity and a basic human right. 100 years ago, freedom of speech was a basic human right. 100 years from now freedom of speech will be a basic human right. 100 years ago mobile broadband was not a basic human right, and who is to say it will be around (in current form anyway) in 100 years. I suppose we could have labeled the telegraph a basic human right 100 years ago, but that would be considered preposterous today.
And cheaper to deploy.
All your database are belong to U.S.
If they want to talk about human rights, they should be talking about the right to live in a democracy or republic, with a free economy, and with the right to free speech. Without that, broadband is meaningless as it will be essentially a heavily restricted private network with the eyes of the government always on you.
1. Life: Can you survive without it? Yes.
2. Liberty: Does not having it limit your freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to a fair and speedy trial, or other consitutional rights? No.
3. Pursuit of Happiness: Could you live a happy life without it? Yes.
It is not a right to be bestowed upon you, it is an opportunity afforded to you by others. As such, others may request compensation for it.
I'm getting sick of this new generation of entitlement.
First, mobile or not is secondary, the question is whether people are connected to the Internet or not. Mobile is generally the best way to do it (cheaper infrastructure, cheaper terminals, no needs for reliable/permanent mains power...), so let's accept mobile is best, though this might be untrue in some circumstances (cities, st world countries...) where fixed would be OK too.
Second, broadband or trickle-band is moot: the question is whether people have access to Internet or not, not whether that access is fast or slow. It's amazing what you can do on a slow internet connection, when you really need to. Checking produce prices, matching sellers and buyers, transport pooling... doesn't require an awful lot of bandwidth. Only video does require a lot of bandwidth, and this is rather luxury. Even good sound doesn't need broadband.
Finally, pipes are nice, but it's what travels through them that's really key. I'm not sure FaceBook and YouTube are *that* vital.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Internet access, like transportation and cell phone service and cable or satellite TV and food and shelter, are commodities we purchase. While they may all be necessities in many people's minds they simply are NOT human rights. A human right is something you're born with and no one can take away. Someone may "violate" your human rights but they can't take them away and human rights cannot be bought and/or sold.
Connectivity is also a luxury. The internet as a public commodity is less than a generation old, fer cryin' out loud.
there's merely values a society holds dear. the success or failure of that society is based on what those values are and how dearly the society holds those values
if it holds those values so fervently that it calls them natural human rights and fights and dies for such so-called rights, then that society will succeed if those rights indeed help the society thrive better than other societies with a different set of values. the human rights the USA holds dearly i think enriches the happiness and productivity of society enough that the USA succeeds as well as it does
some other societies hold other values to the point of fighting to the death, which i will not name, but a review of current events will reveal what i am talking about. it is my assertion that those values those other societies will fight to the death for doom those societies to less happiness and less productivity and therefore the dustbin of history, eventually, as they are simply out competed
as for mobile broadband, i can see a just society handing out cell phones to homeless and poor people to guarantee a baseline of voting rights and access to health records and financial abilities. but it will take time before cell phones reach that level of indisputable necessity and ubiquity. but we are definitely headed in that direction
in other words: not yet, but someday, when your cell phone is your credit card, id, bank account, patient records, etc., you will need such access to be called a right
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why don't you go ask someone from the Middle East how well internet access is working out over there, if you can get them to stop calling for filmmaker's heads on platters for five seconds.
We really going to stir up this old pot again?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Honestly, WTF? really? what complete moron even Asked this question, and hopefully someone smacked them in the head.
Do I have the Right to not have to pay for your perceived rights? I believe that life begins at germination, first cell division, and conception in mammals, just like most trained biologists say. I believe human abortion is human murder. Do I have the right to not pay for abortions even though you think you have the right to an abortion?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I've always been puzzled by the grandiose term "right" when applied to something like healthcare or in this case broadband. I'm taking an ethics class and "right" in this context doesn't mean what we colloquially think it means; it's an academic term. It simply means that a society is making the decision that every citizen will have access to some thing or some service. I have a right to traffic signs and lights on my route to work. I have a right to electrical service so long as I pay for it. If my old school district ever went through with the policy, every high school student would have the right to a laptop.
It has little to do with your inalienable Constitutional rights that are on a higher level. It's a poor choice of words when entering a civic debate when the terminology implies something quite a bit different.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I paid Al Gore to invent the internet, I damn well better have the right to use it!
But seriously . . . I believe access to information is (or should be) a right. By whatever means is the accepted norm for the times. For example, in colonial (US) days that might mean via public assembly, printed pamphlets or newspapers. As technology progressed so did the accepted norms -- from magazines to radio and television broadcasts to the internet and beyond. And I believe the government has some responsibility to ensure that all citizens have access to information.
Am I saying every citizen should be issued a shiny new smartphone with the latest and greatest 4G plan? Of course not. But every single person should have at least some sort of internet access available to them - whether it's at a local library, school, town hall or some other public facility. Or even publicly funded private access for special cases such as a low income person who is an invalid/shut-in.
I'm afraid if we treat access to information as a privilege or luxury rather than a right, we're going to start a slippery slope we'll never get back up. And we may have already started down it . . .
Try living without those.
"Oh sorry; you can't afford food, too bad!"
Even something like electricty is needed now-a-days.
Well I guess people live in in shacks in 3 world countries, scrounging for food scraps.
You can live without them.
What about public defenders?
They cost money.
Are they a right?
There aren't enough pro bono lawyers to go around.
I think people should have to pay taxes for some things, whether they like it or not.
Even if it isn't a "right" it is an essential privilege.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
and food prices are volatile, but steadily increasing:
Why not just say fuel prices are rising? Food is so cheap as to have become nearly ubiquitous. Its not a hard sell to get even staunch free-market folks on board with a food-providing social program due to its low costs and high benefits. However, the delivering of the food to where its needed, well thats still quite expensive. It would not be so easy to get those same staunch free-market boys on board to pay for that, especially since THAT cost is going up.
"His name was James Damore."
At some point, that could be said of cars, running water, telephone, electricity, sewers, public schools, TV, radio... Something being new does not automatically mean it's superfluous ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
But I'm not surprised to see Communist News Network put in those terms.
I would say it is a luxury for some, a needed business tool for many. In this country anyway.
Dont pay the bills and see whats a human right and whats a luxury. To me every human is entitled to enough land/water/animals to support them and their family that should be a human right.
Jack of all trades,master of none
If sewers are a human right, then so should broadband be. What? Sewers aren't a basic human right? Hmmm, ok broadband's more important, make that a right first.
Sent from my ENIAC
I'm mostly in favor of the idea of "some basic internet access for free for everyone" as some sort of entitlement - I like the idea that if someone wishes to seek knowledge on the internet, but can't afford some basic internet for themselves - then the government (or municipality) should be providing some basic access. Free access to knowledge, basic access to learning materials and all that jazz. But they already do that (can't say if this is the case in the US or other developed nations, please correct me if I'm wrong). I worked in several remote work sites near small towns during several summers, and even the smaller towns had libraries where anyone could go use the internet for free. Most people already have some sort of basic free access to internet
Whether you consider this a "right" or "entitlement", this is pretty much in the same category as food. There's practically no starvation in the US or Canada in this day - you'll get food stamps, or a free meal at a homeless shelter, food bank donations or something if you absolutely can't afford food yourself. You won't get to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, and you won't get lobster or caviar as your meal, but you won't starve. Similarly, you won't get high speed internet access, or access to porn, video games for your basic provided internet access at the library, nor will it be 24/7. But you can have access if you want for free. Mobile broadband as a human right? That seems fairly ridiculous, how is that even possible without first providing a mobile device to everyone? Mobile broadband as a right is a ridiculous concept.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
"We need to make sure all the world's inhabitants are connected to the goodies of the online world, which means better health care, better education, more sustainable economic and social development"
No, better healthcare means better healthcare and better education means better education.
And more work for you and your kind doesn't mean more sustainable economic and social development.
You should have the right to buy internet access of your choice, but not the right to make your neighbor pay for it.
It's a classic sales technique to get the answer you want: give the target only two choices, one of which they probably don't want to chose, so then it must be the other one. There's many more choices obviously, such as say, a public utility.
Sent from my ENIAC
...I find that one has the right to own and use a printing press. That does not imply that anyone is entitled to have the printing press given to him.
Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is possibly the most liberal definition of "human rights" currently imaginable, seems to concur. It is difficult, given the reality of life on this planet, to see how mobile broadband can be included as a requirement for "a standard of living adequate for... health and well-being" (Article 25).
How can you have a right to something that someone else provides to you? What if they don't wan't to? Will you force them to give it to you? Wouldn't that interfere with their ability to live their own lives as they choose?
Maybe it would be better to say that we should endeavor to provide internet access to everyone for the sake of human progress. It's a little disingenuous to pretend that by failing to provide you with internet access they've actually denied you something to which you were rightly entitled.
Can't imagine the CEO of Ericsson or ITU secretary-general would have any monetary stake in making sure the world is entitled to mobile broadband.
like... ...the right to marry whoever i choose ...the right to for women to control their own bodies ...the right to equal pay for genders ...the right to air and water unpolluted by factories ...the right to protection from imminent domain
the list goes on...
let's be careful with the word "right", otherwise we sound like a prissy nation of first world whiny bitches.
i defer you louis ck's airplane story about a guy who is delighted to learn he has broadband in a plane, and then five minutes later is bitching because it is too slow.
As usual, /.'s libertarians run their mouths without actually having a clue. They seek to impose their definitions of rights on others.
Instead of sitting by while they ruin another discussion, let's start with an actual, legal definition of human rights as determined by a legally-binding body instead of some knee-jerker who thinks his thoughts should extend to all humans. The Declaration of Independence actually doesn't count as a legal document (anymore), so let's dispose of that right away, even before we get to the point of dismissing the US Constitution as a whole because it only applies to one group of humans.
Let's go with the United Nations, the generally recognized body for international affairs.
Oh, Look! They went through this process already! In 1948, when the world was falling apart, they still came to an agreement on what are the basic human rights. I'm going to go with their work rather than some Randian who still thinks John Galt is a hero.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
The most relevant is Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Does this give people an entitlement to a specific conduit for exercising their freedom of expression? No. But it does give people the right to communicate through any conduit they choose (as long as they don't do something that infringes on other peoples' rights to use that conduit).
Below are a few of the relevant Articles.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
.
.
.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance wit
And of those, which are you guaranteed access to whether or not you have the means to pay? I believe the only one it public schools, and there's a semantic argument to be made that that's an entitlement, not a right. Note that entitlement doesn't mean bad, it's just a thing we've elected to make available to everyone or some subset of people at no or reduced cost.
Broadband is a luxury item. At the moment, I don't need it. I should, however, have access to it should I chose to purchase it. Is it not the same as the rights to electricty and phone lines? Folks still have to pay for their service if they choose to utilize it, but everyone has equal rights to access it. It prevents these services from only being offered in rich, densly populated urban and suburban areas where they could be the most profitable. We city dwellers then pay a bit extra on our bills to subsidize the longer lines run to the homes of the farmers who actually grow my food. Seems fair to me.
So yeah, broadband should be considered a right. People still have to pay for it. I have the right to own firearms. If I choose to have one, I have to buy it myself. If I want a printing press, it is my right to own one, but I still have to pay for it. If I choose to get a car, I can, but I still have to pay for it. Need I go on?
Why does everyone automatically assume that calling something a right means someone else has to pay for it? I have to choose to excercise my rights. But the "all government action is bad" reactionaries seem to have forgotten that our human rights need to be protected in law. Without being protected by law, the disadvantaged can be taken advantage of. That destroys the theoretically egalitarian society in which we all have the same possibilities. Having the same possibilities doesn't mean I don't get to choose which ones I follow.
But, I'm afraid this is too sensible to appease the slashdot mob. While we are at it, let's get rid of the right to phone lines and electrical lines. That way, the markets can maximize profit and leave those nasty hillbillies without power.
Most of the objections to broadband access being called a "right" derive from the supposition that assigning such a "right" might interfere with their property "rights" (e.g. the "right" to due compensation). So I'd really like to know why people think *their* property is a "right".
The reality is a hybrid of rights and luxury.
You have the right to expect that access be available to you as much as it is to anyone else in your neighbourhood, provided you can afford to pay for it. So you have a "right" to the option of paying for broadband service, but not the "right" to expect to receive it for free.
The car was revolutionary; people were not granted the "right" to own a car, nor even the "right" to drive one without passing tests.
The telegraph and telephone revolutionized communications, yet once again, no one has ever expected you to receive those services for free.
Even the radio and television, which broadcast "free" for anyone with a receiver, still require that you buy a receiver.
But of course the CEO of a company which SELLS such technology would like to have it declared a "right." That way they can soak the goobermint for even more money than they shaft the current consumers, with far less oversight and regulation than is currently in place. Hell, government being the way it is, they'd probably want to select a few providers of a "guaranteed internet access" program, and the CEO of any major telecom company would be a fool not to hope for a chance at being one of those few (and well paid) providers.
But hey, this is a world where iPad and iPhone wielding "protestors" on Wall Street were crying the blues about losing their homes while paying around $100 a month for mobile data access. I never have quite grasped how someone who faces a heavy mortgage can afford luxuries like hi-def TV, mobile broadband/data plans, etc.
Personally I think their priorities are just screwed up. As are the priorities of CNN's audience.
But it's not surprising. If someone thinks they might get something for free just by putting up their hand in a quick audience poll, of course they're going to put up their hand. The "expense" is far too cheap compared to the potential pay-back not to at least give it a shot.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
So, Australia (or just silly South Australia?) may be considering making ILLEGAL to record conversations &/or events, ie, when "only" in anticipation of assault, etc. The proposed new law is intended to REQUIRE that an offense has -already- been committed, before making such a recording is legal there. (!)
Consider these cases:
1. a spouse - in home with history of domestic violence - perceives the pattern, suggesting that the other spouse is likely to become violent, so s/he starts recording their conversation, etc., just in case. THIS WOULD BECOME ILLEGAL.
2. a elderly, surviving spouse is alone at home, when the doorbell rings; being aware that elderly are often subject to scams & attacks in their homes, this person starts recording (maybe also videoing, since the person at the door is likely unknown to them), just in case. THIS WOULD BECOME ILLEGAL.
NOW, if Mobile Internet were a RIGHT, they could just ring someone, eg, via Skype, etc. who would become party to a conversation (possibly able to view the other people involved (eg, via Skype video), to insure that there would be LEGAL sharing of the events of the moment and/or images of the person at the door (in our 2 cases, respectively).
I'm sure there are a variety of other situations, eg, tied up with a child's right to an education (so they could learn by connecting to their classroom, when they must be at home with an illness (eg, contangeous Chicken Pox), but feel well enough to participate remotely with events in their classroom(s).
Medical monitoring... Access to the Internet in a "black-hole" where wired Internet is not available.
The cases & responses I've listed (above) would become LEGAL, eg, based on a (new?) principal to make it legal to act in one's own interest.
Perhaps this "right to record" should be added to the Bill of Rights, by way of modernizing it.
None of those things are necessities for life. To survive, to be alive, I do not need to use on-line vendors.
Here in the Netherlands we increasingly need to... Various government taxes already can only, be handled online. Currently the taxes that can only be handled online are those for all (small and large) businesses. And if those businesses refuse they are put out of business. Individuals can still get a paper form for their income tax but it's already strongly discouraged. More and more parts of the government are going an online-mostly or only route, not only for additional stuff but the essentials.
Many businesses stopped sending bills through 'snail' mail. Most communication businesses (telephone, cable and internet providers) were the first to do so. Banks are decreasing their number of offices throughout the country rapidly. Most of the time only the major cities still have one (1) office where you can do your banking business. (Such an office would have to serve ten of thousands of customers if not a majority was doing his/ber banking online.) For the rest they only offer online services. The least expensive health-insurers (with the basic package) only offer you service if they can send bills electronically and medicine can only be ordered through an internet-apothecary (after you get a prescription by a certified GP or specialist of course).
With other things, not interacting online causes a hefty financial penalty. Getting your receipts through mail is a value-added option, not included in the basic packages for those businesses still offering it that don't have to send you the actual goods by mail (like shops... which are cheaper most of the time, by the way, if you order the goods online). The best deals on contracts for electricity, cooking gas, all insurances, savings accounts, mortgages and other financial products, communication products, etc. are found online.
If you want to access the educational system, you have to be online, if only it was to sign up for an actual school or university (for college education or equivalents or better).
A person in the Netherlands which doesn't have access to the internet has either a very poor standard of living or a very high one (because he can afford to opt-out).
I would say, here in the Netherlands the ability to have an internet connection capable of doing all this described above is a right. Of course that does not imply you should get a connection for free. You should still pay a proper (but also limited) fee for your connection if you decide to use the services of a provider that provides you with said internet connection. The providers however are (and increasingly so) regulated, for example, by means of laws for things like net-neutrality and the anti-telecoms-monopoly agency OPTA. And there are also government subsidies for providers willing to implement connections to places less profitable. Which is all fair, considering you can't really live in the Netherlands without having an internet connection of some sorts.
A luxury or a human right. What there isn't a middle ground here?
Yes, they asked a leading question based on a false dichotomy and got a stupid answer. Internet access is a utility, like electricity or clean water. Like those things, the more people have access to it, the better off they will be. However, equating utilities with the likes of freedom of speech and freedom from slavery is a slap in the face of anyone who has struggled for those true human rights.
I respectfully disagree. Without utilities like the information superhighway, or the actual highway, or clean water, things like 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom from slavery' are almost meaningless. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie 'The Matrix' where Neo first encounters 'supernatural' physics. After Neo demands his 'right to a phone call', agent Smith wryly states - "What good is a phone call, if you are unable to speak" (as Neo's lips become sealed shut due to the Matrix's master's control over 'reality'.
Of course my own delusionality is that this slashdot article is a Navy psy-op architected by Information Warfare Officers[1] such as Dave Shcroeder who recently gave high praise to my "Right To Serve" network neutrality manifesto, as well as Vint Cerf's email address to help me cut to the heart of the issue. From my initial ack, Mr. Cerf is currently reading my draft[2] and investigating further.
[1]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
[2]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.txt
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.txt
It's the height of silliness to assert that something you need to exist in this world is not a human right. It is. It's a human right to have access to clean and safe food, housing, clothing medical care and to be free of fear from lawlessness and arbitrary authority. People who disagree with any of this are the problem ... their idea is nice summed as "I'm doing OK in this zero sum game called life , you all go find someplace to die, or work for me for a few years, then go off and find someplace to die.
In South Korea gaming addiction increased dramatically as the government started with all this "free Internet for everybody, including kindergarten" nonsense.
Clearly, the difference between correlation and causation is not clear to to.
(oh, and that's my first account, it's limited specifically because some people who do not like what I write on that topic have mod points and they do not argue on ideas, only on personalities).
You bitch endlessly about this, yet there is a free market solution to your problem that you refuse to take advantage of. If you send slashdot a measly $5 you can be a subscriber and take advantage of the subscriber +1 bonus on your comments. The fact that you refuse to take advantage of this speaks volumes to your unwillingness to actually follow through on the actions that you preach endlessly.
And on top of that, you are also a repeat offender of not replying to people based on their "personalities". You ignore a large number of comments that are replies to your comments because you don't like the people who write them, therein intentionally skipping an opportunity to have a real discussion on the issues you hold so dear. You instead prefer to just speak into a giant echo chamber and admire yourself whenever like-minded people mod you up for posting links to ron paul videos that they have already seen.
You damned hypocrite. And how fitting that my word to prove I'm not a machine is "devout". As in, you are a devout worshipper of ron paul.
Because a bunch of bush niggers that have no electricity, safe running water, agricultural system, modern health care, houses constructed with modern materials up to code, mobile phones, computers, etc could REALLY benefit from having broadband access while outrunning a lion chasing their ass for food. That makes a lot of sense.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
How many people think living off of Other People's Money is a right? Bet that one would get a majority vote too nowadays.
Liberty in your lifetime
You guys really need to be stuck in Mindanao, Philippines to understand the value of human rights!
As the internet has taken hold and is taken for granted, the systems that support our cities and enable people to produce and receive goods and services have changed to incorporate and use them. Over time, our population increases, and these more efficient methods methods become required to maintain the required output to feed/shelter the population.
So while on an individual level, turning off the communications and the internet may not be a big deal ... on a society level, it could easily be a disaster and ruin a society.
This is almost enough to ensure that internet access, or more generally, access to electronic communications, should be a human right.
I find that interesting, as 30 years ago nobody would even have thought to ask that question.
Vint Cerf gives a very good answer, though that was for the Internet and not Mobile Broadband. "For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?_r=0.
You never have the right to someone else's property or labor. Goods and services are not something you can have a "right" to.
Ergo, medicine and medical care are not "rights" either.
All "rights" are some kind agreement. The big Human Rights are agreed in the UN and sometimes (weakly, badly, unevenly) enforced by that organization. Everything other right is some kind of contract with a state.
Internet access is not a right at the inter-government level. It can be a "right" by agreement at state level - e.g. make it a manifesto promise in an election, or a part of a national bill of rights.
In an advanced nation, internet access is a major advantage. If that nation, collectively, wants equality of opportunity for its citizens, then it should make internet access a right.
Do you have a right to have a government that doesn't actively discourage you actually getting mobile broadband?
Not in any country that fails to make enough spectrum available to carriers.
I think by no right to own a car, kelemvor4 meant no right to drive it on state-owned roads.
in the UK [...] Banks have been closing branches down, making internet or phone banking the only available options for many people unless they are willing to travel quite far.
Say someone relies on Internet banking. If his employer does not offer direct deposit, or he receives a cheque in a greeting card in the post, how should deposit this cheque? Do UK banks allow Internet cheque deposit with PC flatbed scanners, or do they require a camera phone like Chase does in the USA?
Necessities are the things you cannot live without. To this day, nobody has ever convinced me that includes anything beyond the commonaly accepted food/shelter/clothing. So no, internet
If a government requires citizens to pay tax through the Internet, then access to the Internet is a necessity.
I think that technocratic attitude comes from a perception that dropping means of accessing the World Wide Web will allow people to learn to build their own well or improve their own sanitation.
Transportation requires a service if the real estate market near a job that pays a big enough wage to buy necessities requires that one's shelter be far from the place of work.
And what if nobody chose to be a doctor? Would the government have armed guards escort you to medical school every day?
I believe that's why the United States maintains armed reserve forces. Some people take 8-week EMT courses in the Army. You might be familiar with the TV sitcom M*A*S*H, which presented a fictionalized account of an American combat support hospital in Korea. And in a disaster bigger than the reserves, the United States still has Selective Service System. So to answer your question, yes.
Well you can get to quite a lot of locations using public transportation. Not fast
Damn right it's not fast. The public transit in Fort Wayne, Indiana, has regular scheduled outages of 36 to 60 hours.
Refusing to provide internet service because that person decided to live on the side of a mountain and trunking DSL to them would cost half a million dollars, that's their problem.
Say the government deems something a necessity, but it's expensive to provide to people who live in areas of low population density. However, local governments in areas of higher population density have used "zoning" to ban people from growing food within city limits. Case in point: some cities have fined people for growing what used to be called a victory garden. If everybody were to move to the city, there would be no food for anyone to eat. That's where the government has to step in and subsidize providing the necessity to low-density markets in order to encourage people to continue growing food, as seen in the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
If they want to move somewhere where a company sells internet access and choose to pay for it, any person may have it. I don't think some internet company is going to say "Whaoh, there.. you're from Somalia despite the fact that you now live in London. No soup for you!"
The ISP won't object, but three others will:
The CEO of Campbells Soup declares access to chicken noodle a "human right".
The keyword being "if."
Another comment to this story states that in at least the Netherlands, it's not "if" as much as "now that". So in your view, is the Netherlands violating the human right not to have to subscribe to Internet access to pay tax?
So if you lived too far from work to walk, and you didn't make enough at your current job to pay rent closer to your job, and you could find no one else willing to hire you at a living wage, what steps would you take to rectify the situation?
I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that the U.S. government can forcibly draft people to deliver free medical care to the populace.
Can? Yes. Will? Unlikely. The active and reserve armed forces of the United States are all-volunteer as of 2012, but should disaster strike, the United States still reserves the right to draft people. Otherwise, Selective Service would have been repealed.
A "right" is not something the govenments give to you. They are things that you have to prevent the governments from destroying. Repeatedly... Forever.