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."
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.
This is the typical boneheaded American-libertarian idealistic stupidity:
"Rights are only those things enumerated by 56 white men in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness."
Those 56 white, slave-owning men did not and do not have a monopoly on what is a right. You seem to think that the US Constitution and the no-longer legally anything Declaration are the only documents to ever have any say on what is a right. Go do some reading from around the world and throughout history.
I'm getting sick of this new generation of "Me, Me, Me! Mine! Mine! Mine!"
I wouldn't use your definition to read this article, I would more use the American Convention of Human rights, to set a baseline:
commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial
From this I think internet in the US, meets that definition. To have a meaningfull say in the right to free speech, assembly, and information on how laws are interpreted... We are to the point where everyone needs to be given access to internet to defend these Human rights. Now the second part of the question is, does having that access freely available at public library still cover the need, or do we need to extend that to giving free access to anyone carrying say, a expired smartphone, like we do with dialing 911 and a dumb phone....
I would come down on the side of "not a right" but I think the line is not nearly as far off, as your definition of rights goes. IE I don't think your definition of a right would include free speech.
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.