Fast Broadband To Be Classed a Fundamental Right in the UK (bbc.com)

Mark Wilson writes: Every home and business in the UK will have access to "fast broadband" by 2020. This is the latest pledge from Prime Minister David Cameron, who said access to the internet "should be a right." At the moment, 83% of homes and businesses in Britain have access to broadband connections 24Mbps and faster. By 2017, this is expected to rise to 95%. The latest plan is directed at the "last 5 percent" — such as people in remote areas — and will oblige broadband providers to supply at least 10Mbps broadband to anyone who demands it.

Comments

Fundamental right?????

[Nutria]

When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".

Re:Fundamental right?????

[mwvdlee]

Just make it go on long enough for "fundamental right" to mean "something the government gives you" and pretty soon they'll take some of the old ones back.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

"pretty soon they'll take some of the old ones back."

Why not say that out loud?

1) Freedom of speech
2) Right to privacy
There, was that hard?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . oblige broadband providers to supply at least 10Mbps broadband to anyone who demands it.

When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".

Right. I have a mediocre ISP, and I'm hoping to change to a better one soon. But even with my 2.5-3 Mbps current Internet connection, I somehow manage to live a fully and happy life. Other people have to make do with much less.

If a government wants to do something re. Internet service, it might want to work on security from criminal snooping, and from loss of service after a natural disaster.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[vux984]

When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".

Internet access should be enshrined as a right. This extends beyond just remote rural citizens to everyday citizens everyday lives.

I'm sure you recall the scene in the matrix where Neo demands his call and they edit out his mouth. "What good is a phone call if you can't speak..."

In modern society the internet is replacing the post office. We increasingly use it to commuicate with eachother and with our government.

To deny someone the internet in 2020 is akin to denying them the post office in 1920. Not only should access be mandated, but it really should be enshrined as a right -- such that it cannot be easily curtailed by a judge or future legislators at whim.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Nutria]

What if access to the railroads had been enshrined a fundamental right back in the 1940s? After all, "freedom of movement", right? But that would have stifled the growth of roads, and we're much more mobile now than we were 70 years ago. Same thing with newspapers and freedom of speech.

It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[x0ra]

Right to own and bear arms.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Hognoxious]

That's a good comparison. The Post Office has to serve everywhere, from big cities to remote islands, and at the same charge.

Of course while you probably see that as one of those things needed to keep a society running, others see it as the first step towards death panels and compulsory gay marriage.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[vux984]

It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.

I don't disagree with you, and your not wrong. First, RTFA...

--
The PM is to introduce a "universal service obligation" for broadband, giving the public a legal right to request an "affordable" connection.

It would put broadband on a similar footing to other basic services such as water and electricity.
--

Its not being enshrined as an amendment to the magna carta or something.

It's infinitely better that fundamental rights be generically written so as not to tie civilization to any one specific technology.

And while I agree with this. If they don't pass legislation to "enshrine" specific technology then its legal status is indeterminate and in limbo until the courts set binding precendents. Especially since the courts are bound by the law as it is written, not the will of the people or even common sense. Which is precisely the wrong way to go about protecting your rights. Its good to proactively legislate that certain technologies are captured by your more abstract rights.

Finally, to your railroad argument vs freedom of movement; I offer you the modern air travel "no-fly list"... as an example where if something is not explicitly enshrined you get bullshit like this that will take decades to work out. The internet has a lot in common with it, and someone who wishes to deny you the internet simply argues ... your freedom of speech is not curtailed: you can still say what ever you want to people in person; you just can't say it on the internet....

I applaud any nation that proactively says: "Noope. We're not having that nonsense here. Denying you the internet is a violation of your rights. All citizens should have affordable access." And if in the year 2400 such a ruling on the books is as quaint as those ordinances that still require the school house to stable your horse... so be it. (Although I am in favor of a better system of removing obsolete law than we have now.)

Re:Fundamental right?????

[mattwarden]

It's just a rhetorical technique. Government handouts are stigmatized, yet voters will still reward politicians for them. So politicians and their supporters make arguments about various things being rights (college, healthcare, cell phones, broadband, etc.) which gives the recipients the cover they need to avoid the stigma

Re:Fundamental right?????

[jonbryce]

The government wants everyone to file their taxes online. If they want to make that a requirement, then they need to make sure everyone has internet access.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[tshawkins]

Its the UK , there is not right to own and bear arms.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[uncqual]

It's worth pointing out that in the U.S. there is absolutely no requirement in the Constitution for a postal service. Congress is merely empowered to establish one if they choose to - they can also decide to close it down at any time or limit its scope/reach or charge delivery addresses in sparsely populated areas a 'convenience fee' for home deliver or whatever.

Had the Constitution not mentioned that Congress was empowered to establish a Post Office and Postal Roads if they saw fit, they would have been unable to do so. As the Tenth Amendment makes clear if there were any doubt, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

Its the UK , there is not right to own and bear arms.

Yes there is, the UK government is simply oppressing the people and denying them their rights.

"Rights" aren't something given by a government, they are something we all have, simply by existing.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[vux984]

It's worth pointing out that in the U.S. there is absolutely no requirement in the Constitution for a postal service

Article 1 Section 8's enumeration of Power of Congress are implicitly also exclusively *reserved* for Congress.

For example Congress is not merely empowered to establish currency; this task is reserved for congress. Congress is not merely empowered to declare wars or maintain the navy; the power to declare wars and maintain navies *rests* with congress. The states can't establish their own currencies, navies, nor declare their own wars.... nor can they establish their own post offices.

Historically, the post office was as important to congress as the military -- indeed it was critical and essential communications infrastructure for government to function. To say the constitution was written to "merely empower" congress to establish a post office as if to say it opens up the possibility that they could do it if they chose to is absurd.

Franky, in 2015, I think one could argue that Congress has the constitutional authority stemming from the postal service clause to build a national public internet. To interpret the establishment of 'post offices and post roads' as allowing them to run cables, and provision land, install servers etc. The purpose of the post office is to deliver communications between people after all. The internet is making the post office obsolete, because when all is said and done the internet *is* an automated computerized post office.

Surely you aren't going to argue that the fact that we don't print packets on paper and carry them by horseback from node to node (as the founders intended!!) is an issue? This is /. after all; and we've been mocking people for years for acting like doing some 100 year old thing "on a computer" makes it different than the original thing in some important way.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Hognoxious]

Really? Like women have in Saudia Arabia?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Hognoxious]

It's worth pointing out that in the U.S. there is absolutely no requirement in the Constitution for a postal service.

It's also worth pointing out that the article is about the UK.

The constitution doesn't explicitly mention roads either, so if you think Ike was a goshdiggitydarned cormanust don't nobody's forcing you to drive on the interstate.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".

Internet access should be enshrined as a right. This extends beyond just remote rural citizens to everyday citizens everyday lives.

I'm sure you recall the scene in the matrix where Neo demands his call and they edit out his mouth. "What good is a phone call if you can't speak..."

In modern society the internet is replacing the post office. We increasingly use it to commuicate with eachother and with our government.

To deny someone the internet in 2020 is akin to denying them the post office in 1920. Not only should access be mandated, but it really should be enshrined as a right -- such that it cannot be easily curtailed by a judge or future legislators at whim.

Transportation is a fundamental right. Where's my government-subsidized car?

Food is a fundamental NEED for humans to survive. Where's my government-subsidized food?

If it's an absolute right or NEED, then dial-up should suffice for basic communication (i.e the Post Office). A 10Mb+ connection sounds like a mandate straight from the Millennial Netflix generation addicted to narcissism and a constant need to feed social media with HD video.

As a taxpayer, I'll pay for a (dial-up) Post Office connection for the masses. Might give them some incentive to get off their ass and pay for a faster connection if they "need" it so bad. I fail to see how your own personal UPS service is a human right or need in 1920 or today, which is akin to fast broadband.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

Saudi Arabia is also violating those women's rights, what is your point?

Do you honestly think that people don't have a right to free speech, anywhere in the world, regardless of what governments do?

Do you think China's censorship is right or wrong?

At some point, basic human rights exist regardless of what laws are passed. Any law that attempts to limit such rights, is a violation of human rights.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Chris Mattern]

In modern society the internet is replacing the post office.

But access to a post office is not a right. It's something governments have striven to provide their citizens, but it's never been a right.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Charcharodon]

Internet access is not a right (go live on a mountain and try to get service), using it is not a right either (blind people and the retarded have a hard time using the internet), the choice to use the internet if you want is a right, the choice to provide said internet service is also a right. The last two are known as freedom.

Trying to make the first two rights is called socialism which is just a prettied up word for people who believe in slavery.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Transportation is a fundamental right. Where's my government-subsidized car?

At the dealer, on the trip there, you can also find the government-subsidized roads.

Food is a fundamental NEED for humans to survive. Where's my government-subsidized food?

At the grocery store. Which received it ultimately from the government-subsidized farmers.

If it's an absolute right or NEED, then dial-up should suffice for basic communication (i.e the Post Office). A 10Mb+ connection sounds like a mandate straight from the Millennial Netflix generation addicted to narcissism and a constant need to feed social media with HD video.

As a taxpayer, I'll pay for a (dial-up) Post Office connection for the masses. Might give them some incentive to get off their ass and pay for a faster connection if they "need" it so bad. I fail to see how your own personal UPS service is a human right or need in 1920 or today, which is akin to fast broadband.

You're assuming that suffering at a given level will induce the results you want. It's a common misconception. The problem is that the limitation you impose may make it more difficult for people to achieve the results you want, a factor you don't seem to consider. Not only that, I believe you are assuming that the costs of dial-up and the costs of broadband are widely divergent. It would probably surprise you greatly to learn that the provision of broadband is effectively the same as the phone costs or basic communication you describe. (Amusingly, the USPS also delivers packages, much like UPS. Go figure.).

Honestly, try doing a cost breakdown, and then a results matrix. Otherwise you're just starving people to get them to feed themselves. That only works so far.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[shellbeach]

"Rights" aren't something given by a government, they are something we all have, simply by existing.

... as determined by ...? You? Me? Everybody as they see fit?

The UN universal declaration of human rights would be as close as you're going to get to consensus. But I'm afraid the right to bear arms didn't make the cut.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[ultranova]

When everything is a fundamental right, then that completely devalues the definition of "fundamental".

Everything isn't a fundamental right. Very few things are, in fact. But one of them is the ability, not just a purely theoretical liberty, to live and partake in society on equal footing with everyone else - and today that requires the Internet.

That said, it might be clearer if fundamental rights and consequently required rights were separated to their own groups. In that case, "broadband Internet connection" would be in the "required rights" group.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Nutria]

the ability, not just a purely theoretical liberty, to live and partake in society on equal footing with everyone else

No, since that pretty explicitly means everyone having as much of everything as everyone else, and that experiment was a catastrophic failure.

it might be clearer if fundamental rights and consequently required rights were separated to their own groups.

Splendid idea.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Ol Olsoc]

Right to own and bear arms.

Right to own and arm bears?

Now that would be an awesome sport.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Ol Olsoc]

Really? Like women have in Saudia Arabia?

A lot of them probably don't have arms at all any more.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[beelsebob]

However, when it's impossible to become educated, or employed (or potentially in the future, registered as existing, being able to travel, ...) in any way really participate in society without it, then you really do have to consider internet access a fundamental right.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Arm bears? Nah I still prefer to arm sharks with friggin' lasers.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Nutria]

Absolutely not true. For example, think back to pre-radio days: freedom of the press required you to be able to afford a press. The government didn't pay for there to be one in each house an apartment.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing rights with entitlements. Nobody is denying a right, then or now. In 1920 people had the right to use the post office, but stamps weren't free. In 2015 everyone can get internet, but that doesn't mean other people should have to pay for yours.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[onthemightofprinces]

It's a 'right' that nobody in the UK wants. In fact we ourselves petitioned the government to ban handguns and the like because we considered the right to life as more important than the right for gun companies to make a profit.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Post office was never considered a right. Don't put a stamp on the letter, and it is not delivered.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[nukenerd]

Its the UK , there is not [sic] right to own and bear arms.

Very few people in the UK have any wish to "own and bear arms". Most people find the idea repulsive, and certainly would not regard it as a "right"; it is a different culture from wherever you are and always has been.

I say this as one of a tiny minority who has owned a firearm, as a member of a rifle club, and even I did not regard my ownership as a "right", but as something to qualify for. Anyway, last time I checked there is no great difficulty in owning a firearm if you are a bona-fide member of such a club, or have an identifiable need for one, such as a chicken farmer owning a shotgun to kill foxes. I live in a rural area and in fact my neighbour farmer has a shotgun, another of this tiny minority.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[fche]

"It's a 'right' that nobody in the UK wants." ... except those who do. If the "we" you're talking about were unanimous, it would not have needed a petition, never mind a law.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Mr D from 63]

If broadband is a right, then would not data caps be considered limiting a person's rights? Unlimited access for all.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[CrimsonAvenger]

That's a good comparison. The Post Office has to serve everywhere, from big cities to remote islands, and at the same charge.

Note that the Postal Service is a government institution.

So, raise your hands if you want internet access to be a government provided service. After all, they'd NEVER do something like monitor every website you visit and every email you send, right?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[sconeu]

You misunderstand. How can GCHQ spy on people who are not online? This is an attempt to close the spy-agency version of the analog hole.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

ALWAYS has been? The world didn't begin in 1965.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

If thus happened in the US you would see a lot of people stop paying 60$ a month for 5Mbps connections to go with the free government mandated 10Mb connections.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[uncqual]

And that's why I specifically mentioned the U.S. in my comment. Many Americans are quite ignorant about the U.S. Constitution and some vaguely recall hearing that Post Offices and Postal Roads are mentioned and make the mistake of believing there is some sort of constitutional requirement that such entities exist when in fact it's no different than wars -- Congress has the right to declare war, however they have no obligation to ever declare war and they are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution any time there is not an active declared war. I was merely attempting to avoid confusion and clarify (esp. since so many readers on /. appear to be Americans).

It's worth noting as well that the U.S. Constitution was not intended by those who enacted it to be a mere suggestion as to what the Federal Government was allowed to do -- it was strictly limiting the Federal Government's powers (and, if it had not done so, it would never have been ratified). Thus, just because it might be "good policy" or "helpful to the average citizen" by reducing violent and property crimes, the Federal Government can't require every resident to wear a body camera at all times which transmits continuously to Federal law enforcement agencies. Although, for what it's worth, under the 'flexibility' espoused by some who support a 'living constitution', the Interstate Commerce Clause could easily support such a move and, since it's not a 'search', there's no problem with the Fourth Amendment and since there's no 'right to privacy' mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution there's no Constitutional barrier there - beyond, of course, the fact that there's nothing in the Constitution that permits the Federal Government to implement such a requirement.

And, yes, the interstate highway system is pretty questionable Constitutionally as it far exceeded what was necessary to transport mail [see Article I, Section 8, Clause 7] nor is it a mere regulation of commerce [see Article I, Section 8, Clause 3]. Note, although, that Congress would be within their Constitutional bounds to, for example, pass a law that no state could charge a toll, tax, tarrif or require any other form of consideration in exchange for an out of state vehicle involved in commerce to use that state's roads.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[squiggleslash]

How would that have stifled the growth of the roads? Since when has X being a right meant Y, an alternative to X, been banned?

Freedom of the Press is a fundamental right according to many constitutions. Do any of those countries ban the Internet?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amusing reading the comments here about how this is some kind of government intrusion on freedom. That's complete nonsense.

A universal service obligation is something the UK has desperately needed for a long time because nearly 3 decades has failed to make our telecomms market work correctly. BT has been able to maintain it's monopoly no matter how much effort was put into both letting the markets try and sort it out, and giving them a gentle shove to try and help them along. Telecomms in the UK is a prime example of a situation where relying on the markets has failed. I'm a big fan of leaving things to the markets, on the provisio that it's of benefit, but it's never of benefit if we get a situation where one company has tied up an entire sector and uses that monopoly to ensure there can't even be a market - one company is not a market, and that's the status quo for the vast majority of people in the UK whose only option is to use BT's lines.

So we've got two alternatives, we split BT up, and we've no idea what the fuck the result of that will be. It might work, or it might just mean that someone else becomes dominant in the exact same way. Or, if we don't want to go through the unpredictable risks of splitting BT up, we do what we do with the Post Office, and we say fine, you can have your monopoly, but in order to keep that monopoly you have to do certain things. For the Post Office, they get a monopoly on the last mile deliveries of general post in the UK, and in return they're obligated to deliver to every address in the UK, not just the high population density areas.

For BT this means, yes, okay, you're going to keep 90% of the fixed line market, but given that, you're going to have to make sure those lines are capable of supporting a minimum broadband speed.

You see, broadband is important, yes it's easy to joke and look and say hey, it's not like water or electricity, but as vux984 has somewhat alluded to here electricity wasn't like water and sewage either until about 60 - 70 years ago. It too was a luxury. As we're looking more and more at doing business and working online, moving services online (i.e. being able to Skype a Doctor rather than having to travel 40 miles for someone living rural when they feel like shit and so probably shouldn't be driving anyway) then this is the exact same type of advance we saw with electricity. If the government wants to both save money and expand services (or reduce taxes - something that has, contrary to popular belief, been happening for quite a few years now with an increase to the tax free allowance) but BT wont let it because it's monopoly is blocking progress, then it's about time the government did act to say "You've got two choices - less profit, more socially responsibility, or no more monopoly. Your choice BT.". This is an even more reasonble request to make of BT when you realise that the network on which BT's monopoly was built was originally paid for by the tax payer anyway. It's not unfair to ask that we get something back from it's decades of profiting off the back of that.

The final argument I hear is from naive city dwellers who say "Why should we subsidise those rural folk!" but it's an equally naive and stupid question to ask. The answer is simple - because those rural folk subsidise city folk. How? By providing them with food and water that they can't possibly produce enough of to satisfy their population density in the city. Sure you could have cities stop subsidising rural areas, but then guess what has to happen? Rural areas have to start charging cities more for the food and water they produce to pay for the increased costs of them paying for broadband themselves. A 40p loaf of bread in rural Yorkshire is going to have to start costing £4.00 in London. Next time there's a drought in London, I hope London has enough money to pay the massive markup surrounding counties will have to place on it's water.

This move is going to do nothing other than make Britain a wealthier more progressive nation, and

Re:Fundamental right?????

[davester666]

It's more of a "right not to be killed by a gun-bearing lunatic, right not to be killed by finding sometime lying around the house while you are growing up"

Re:Fundamental right?????

[davester666]

Foxes really upped their game is the US. Now farmers need at least an Uzi to be able to keep them away from the henhouse.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to leave.

Nobody is making you stay.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[beelsebob]

Just like the government isn't paying for your internet connection in the UK, they're just stating that the ISPs aren't allowed to refuse to install one, no matter where you live.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Fundamental rights are those rights which belong to all citizens, according to a constitution or a similar expression of the will of da' people. They are the stuff that comes after you have classified as a human instead of meat popsicle, and as a citizen instead of a terror error of your parents. In other words, they are nothing special in the larger scheme of things.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Internet access should be enshrined as a right. This extends beyond just remote rural citizens to everyday citizens everyday lives.

You are talking about a legislative right, one created by the local legislature, that you can take advantage of.

A fundamental right are things like life, liberty, property, and so on. Freedom of speech, and of the press, and religion, and so on. They are fundamental because they precede government giving them to you -- you have them automatically, which is why they are fundamental.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[dryeo]

The railroads had common-carrier status pushed on them in the late 1800's IIRC, this forced them to treat all customers the same and was sorta considered a right.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[AK Marc]

Speech is a fundamental right. The Internet is the new press. The press was a right, they even called it the freedom of the press.

But being a right doesn't mean it must be provided.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[eliphalet]

I recall a law professor defining a right as "a legally enforceable interest".

Re:Fundamental right?????

[AK Marc]

What rights do people have? Who makes that list? Who enforces that list?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. You can own rifles in the UK.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

So you outlaw handguns, that way only the outlaws can have them? Sounds pretty fucking stupid.

I want everyone to have a handgun. That would reduce crime more than taking them away.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

The last tightening of the already restrictive gun laws in the UK came after some nutter shot 15 or so children. Nearly everyone agreed. We look at the headlines from the USA and are sure we made the right decision. Societies are better off without guns and people who like guns are strange and not to be entirely trusted.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

In Britain, by law, every home is required to have electricity, a telephone line, a fresh water supply, hot and cold water tanks (to survive any disruption of supply), sewage lines, be rainproof, have adequate insulation and above the water table. It wouldn't be too difficult to extend that to minimum Internet speed. A telephone line itself would guarantee 56Kbaud from a dial-up modem. DSL/ADSL guarantees a few Mbytes/second. Having fibre-optic cable TV, raises that to 20 Mbytes.

The problem in the UK, is that the every generation of communications technology is always introduced with a national roll-out that starts with London and the Home counties, moves to the other major cities six months later, other cities a year later and eventually gets to the rural villages about a decade later. By that time the next generation of technology comes out in another roll-out. So while some places in London might have fibre-to-the-home, people in rural villages are still living off ADS or evel dial-up modem. And whoever is first to get access to the latest technology is the first to develop applications.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

The homicide rate in the US is five times that in the UK. How's that working out for you?

Re: Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that in the UK, being a more mature society, we realise that some freedoms need to be tempered with common sense. There are enough mad or quick-tempered people about for it to be sensible to restrict easy ways to kill. Why, one man with a gun could murder 20 or more children in a few minutes.

On the other hand, fear breeds fear. I live in London and never fear I will be robbed or murdered. The front door is unlocked most of the day.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not free.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[x0ra]

There used to be, at least, in the Bill of Rights of 1689

- subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defence as permitted by law;

Re: Fundamental right?????

[x0ra]

The homicide rate in Canada or in France is nowhere near the homicide rate in the US, yet, we are allow to own guns.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

It's a 'right' that nobody in the UK wants.

"Nobody" is highly unlikely...

But in any case, you can't vote away your rights. If you could, then they wouldn't be rights.

We either have a civilization based on basic fundamental rights that exist because we do, or we're just thugs getting our way with brute force.

Take your pick...

---

Side note: Would you be ok with women losing the right to vote in the UK, if a petition passed to ban them from voting?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

A law professor probably would, but that doesn't make him right... it means he sees the world through man-made laws.

Slavery was once legal, it still exists in the world. Is that ok?

Or is it wrong and a violation of human rights, regardless of the law?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

... as determined by ...? You? Me? Everybody as they see fit?

Our creator...

Without a creator, a higher being, then we're just brutish cavemen and it just becomes survival of the fittest.

I'll take the former, if I get a say in it...

You're right that the US Uni Dec of Human Rights is a good start, but it isn't perfect due to politics.

The right to be armed is the right to self-defense. It is the right to be reasonably secure in ones own safety. Since the police don't have the job of keeping people safe, that is your own personal responsibility.

Being armed is one way to do that.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

That is a nice sounding idea, let me know when all murders have stopped and the banning of guns has fixed that.

Of course, if we could just ban that pesky speech, life would be easier as well, right?

---

As a side note: Your desire to be safe from gun-bearing lunatics doesn't mean I have to be unsafe due to being unable to protect myself.

You're assuming that your fears and desires outweight mine, but they don't.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

This is a good start, but it isn't complete, due to politics:

http://www.un.org/en/universal...

Re:Fundamental right?????

[davester666]

and yet, a whole bunch of countries have significantly more strict gun laws, and also have significantly less death and injuries by guns, while not having a corresponding increase in death by other methods.

but no, the "solution" for the US is always "we need MORE guns"

Re:Fundamental right?????

[silentcoder]

Bearing arms is not, you will find, in the international bill of human rights. Considering that document is almost identical to the US bill of rights - this should be food for thought. Now consider that it was written in the aftermath of the holocaust and took several years to reach sufficient consensus to actually be signed it's probably the best reference we have for what is natural human rights that governments aren't supposed to be allowed to tread on.

Of course it's imperfect, but it's the best we have - and the ONLY thing we have that if you ask the rest of the world to help your people out because of what your government is doing there is a chance they may listen.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[silentcoder]

>Our creator...

No holy book ever written included a right to bear arms (or any mention of the topic at all).
So which creator did you have in mind and what is your reference that this is one of the rights he granted you ?
I haven't even asked for actual evidence he exists yet - just that there is one whose believers actually have a scripture supporting your claim.

>Without a creator, a higher being, then we're just brutish cavemen and it just becomes survival of the fittest.
If the only thing keeping you from being brutish is your faith in a higher being then I have news for you: you are brutish. Anything you are only refraining from doing because of your belief - is something you must own as being who you really are.

>The right to be armed is the right to self-defense. It is the right to be reasonably secure in ones own safety.

Well the holy books don't even agree that you HAVE a right to self defense. The most popular one, Jesus, specifically said the exact opposite: according to him if somebody hits you you are supposed to turn the other cheek and let them hit you again. You are supposed to love your enemies.

> Since the police don't have the job of keeping people safe, that is your own personal responsibility.
That is exactly the job the police have. What the hell do you think they are FOR ? I'm not saying they DO their job or do it well, but that job is the sole reason we have them.

>Being armed is one way to do that.
And now we enter the world of reality where we can actually measure some facts. No. It doesn't. In fact. Statistically - being armed increases your risk, it does not decrease it.
Not to mention by far (as in a massive margin) the biggest threat to your safety is yourself, and nothing increases that threat as much as being armed. Unarmed people who try to commit suicide mostly fail.

And it's interesting that while perceptions of violent crime keep going up... actual violent crime keeps going down. It's been on a downward spiral for decades and barring a few countries which are active war zones right now is the safest time to be alive in human history everywhere. So your risk of being attacked is at an all time low.
Your biggest risk in that regard if you're American is actually a mass shooting, and your best defence against THAT is to disarm the citizens.

When people without guns try mass-killings you may get one person badly injured, not dozens of dead people.
Here in my country we had a typical school-shooting scenario a few years ago... except the kid couldn't get a gun, so he took a japanese sword to school. He managed to kill one kid and injure another before he was taken down. If he had, had a machine gun the body count would have been much, much higher. Sandy-Hook higher.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[silentcoder]

> they are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution any time there is not an active declared war.

Actually the current one would be (and everyone since world war 2) - but for a completely different reason. The US has no right to have a standing army - in fact the constitution explicitly prohibits this. An army may only be raised in times of war.
After world war 2 though, the military became such a crucial part of the economy in the US that dismantling it would be a disaster. The easiest work around is to be pretty much permanently in a state of war with somebody (Orwellian as that may be).

One could (not entirely unreasonably) argue that, that clause is not possible to honour today because a military that can compete today requires a large number of career soldiers, lots of tranining, lots of expensive equipment that must be bought, stored and maintained etc. It's not just a case of rounding up a bunch of men and sticking guns in their hands anymore.
But then the correct way to fix it would be an amendment to make having a standing military allowed - NOT to ensure you are permanently at war.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[silentcoder]

I would advise against dial-up as the baseline for a completely different reason. Dial-up is expensive infrastructure for ISP's to maintain (they need to pay for a phone-line for each person who wants to be online at any given moment), it ties up the telephone network, it's unreliable...

Dedicated internet infrastructure taking off was not simply a result of the benefits outweighing the cost - it was also technologically a far superior solution than piggybacking on the phone network and this made providing the service much cheaper as well.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[silentcoder]

Many countries *do* consider it a right.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[silentcoder]

Where in the article or the summary did you read anything about not having to pay for the internet ?

The "right" being granted is only the right to *have* the choice. The right to get a connection *if* you are willing to pay for it.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

No holy book ever written included a right to bear arms (or any mention of the topic at all).

They don't talk about free speech either, so what's your point? How about the right for women to vote, that isn't in there either.

But I'm not talking about a book written by men a long time ago.

The right to bear arms is the right to self-defense, it used to be with sticks, now it is with guns.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

and yet, a whole bunch of countries have significantly more strict gun laws, and also have significantly less death and injuries by guns, while not having a corresponding increase in death by other methods.

Statistics don't help make it better when you're one of them...

Try the knife violence in the UK, it is far worse than the US.

You of course miss the point, and in doing so, would deny others rights. Being armed is the modern day way to provide for self-defense. If you take that away, you're telling people they cannot defend themselves.

All your points, numbers, and debates go right out the window because of that. It is like someone who wants to limit free speech because of what the KKK says. If you want rights, you have to respect them for everyone, even if you don't like specific situations.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

Bearing arms is not, you will find, in the international bill of human rights.

No, it isn't... that is one of the flaws in the international version...

Like I said, politics... There is much the US says and does that doesn't live in reality. The recent calls for "peace" in Syria are a good example. Who are they kidding, even thinking to ask for it, when both sides are very busy killing each other.

Silly, it is simply not living in reality, and that is a shame.

One of a human's rights is to live secure knowing that you can provide for your own protection. In the modern day, that requires guns. Take them away and you're saying that we should all be sheep to criminals, and that really is a crime.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[davester666]

Yeah, that's s.m.r.t. Knowing that thousands and thousands of people will die each year, for the hope that every once in a while, someone will fluke off and "protect themselves".

Re:Fundamental right?????

[silentcoder]

>They don't talk about free speech either, so what's your point? How about the right for women to vote, that isn't in there either.

My point is that you are stating rights from a creator, who probably doesn't exist, with no reference that even your fellow believers in him acknowledge the existence of this right. There are many good and solid philosophical starting points for discerning a basis of human rights. All with their benefits and downsides. John Locke's labour theory of value on which all modern legal property rights are based is a good example of a very logical one - the downside being that it utterly disenfranchised various native people's of the rights to the land they had lived on for thousands of years (though one could argue that this was a racist misapplication rather than something Locke's theory actually sanctified).
But belief in a deity is probably the worst possible basis for a system of rights, historically such beliefs have been much more likely to be used as a basis of oppression than liberation.

>But I'm not talking about a book written by men a long time ago.
So it's some creator belief without a book ? Who then decides what this creator endowed you with ? What is, or is not, a right he granted you ? Where is the reference we can consult when somebody claims a "right" which prejudices us ? Where is the reference we can cite when somebody takes a right away from us ?

You have every right to believe whatever the hell you want. The moment your beliefs impact MY life however, you need more justification than just the belief or you are stepping on my rights.

>The right to bear arms is the right to self-defense, it used to be with sticks, now it is with guns.

When you desire to have a dangerous device in a public sphere we share, you need to justify that with more than mere belief. Other people have rights too. There are always points of contention where some rights intrude on others, generally we can say the right ends where the intrusion happens but there are legitimate exceptions - and in those cases pragmatism ought to rule to ensure that the right sacrificed is the one with the least harm.
It is perfectly true that protestors have a right to protest. It is also true that if they protest in front of a government building (for example) they may impede traffic or access to the building - which impedes your rights. But if the source of protest is legitimate it's quite likely that the harm they are protesting far exceeds the minor inconvenience this one time intrusion on your freedom of movement may entail - and so courts will side with them.
In the case of guns - I think one could reasonably argued that the right to self defence is secondary to the right to live in a safe society as achieving more of the latter ensures there will be less need for the former.
Notice how even in countries with strict gun laws those with a legitimate need for them can still acquire them. Farmers who need a weapon to defend their stock from predators have no difficulty getting a license. Sport shooters and enthusiasts who belong to gun clubs have no trouble getting a gun.
If the price for a license was simply to join a gun club, which operated under some regulations to ensure your membership was contingent on proper safety training (and accuracy training to reduce the risk of you shooting the wrong person) - would that really be an impediment to your right to self defence ? Nobody has a problem with people who really do know how to handle a gun having one. Many people who do (myself included) nevertheless prefer not to own one, but most people have no problem if you truly do follow proper safety protocols (and know what those are). Is it really such a terrible oppression to make the right contingent on that ?
We make the right to drive contingent on proving you can at least do so at a certain minimum standard, you think cars kill a lot of people now ? Imagine a world where there was no drivers licences and anybody could drive !
When your actions threaten th

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Big Hairy Ian]

I just dumped my stock in TalkTalk hackers

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for things like your right to privacy, free speech, etc.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people has he killed with his shotgun?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[tehcyder]

Saudi Arabia is also violating those women's rights, what is your point?

Do you honestly think that people don't have a right to free speech, anywhere in the world, regardless of what governments do?

Do you think China's censorship is right or wrong?

At some point, basic human rights exist regardless of what laws are passed. Any law that attempts to limit such rights, is a violation of human rights.

But there are always some limits on these rights. If you had a right to absolutely free speech, there would be no defamation laws. If you had a right to absolute liberty, there would be no prisons. And so on.

Society agrees on what is or is not acceptable, there's not some series of Platonic Rights that they're reflecting.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[tehcyder]

Without a creator, a higher being, then we're just brutish cavemen and it just becomes survival of the fittest.

We don't have a creator. Society's laws are written by human beings.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, the UK should trade its populace's relative safety, and freedom from gun deaths, for American style gun rights, and all the murders and chaos that come with.

no thanks, stupid yank.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[tehcyder]

"It's a 'right' that nobody in the UK wants." ... except those who do. If the "we" you're talking about were unanimous, it would not have needed a petition, never mind a law.

It's a case of the majority ruling.

For instance, while there are undoubtedly some paedophiles who would want the age of consent abolished entirely, most of us think a law preventing you from fucking babies is a good idea.

And, yes, this does infringe on the paedophiles' "rights".

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

you talk as if completely unaware that the murder rate in the UK is less than 1/4th the rate in the US.

no one can claim that it stops all murders.
but we can claim that it DRASTICALLY reduces them, as there is tons of empirical evidence to that effect.
mostly from comparing nearly every other western nation, to the US.

the UK hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996. Australia since 1994.

meanwhile In the US it's been only a day.
and the US is running an average of more nearly 2 mass shootings a week, for the past 6 years.
and the US is also averaging one incident per week where a child gets hold of an secured gun and kills himself or someone else.

that sounds like a great tradeoff.
Yay Merica and Freedumb.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[tehcyder]

The homicide rate in Canada or in France is nowhere near the homicide rate in the US, yet, we are allow to own guns.

Canada and France don't allow you to carry a concealed revolver around with you, and there is no right to shoot muggers or burglars in "self defence". Also, there are serious restrictions on rifles, it's only really hunters who have guns.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

no, knife violence is not worse in the UK than the US.
the US's homicide rate is still over 4x larger than the UKs.

try dealing in facts rather than fantasy

Re:Fundamental right?????

[fche]

Thank you for clarifying. Even 49% of people wishing to retain possession of a self-defence or hobby tool are a "nobody", just like baby f*ers. It must be comfortable for you to have such a clear moral compass.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

In the modern day, that requires guns

bull fricking s---

in the modern day it requires a modern society that actually works together secure in their knowledge of mutual protection with a government that actually defends its citizens rights and wellbeing.

which western advanced nation has the most crime and violence? the US.
which western advanced nation has the most guns? the US.

The rest of the western world has reasonable gun laws, and amazing as it may be to you, are not dens of villainy and despair, beholden to criminals and in fear of their lives every day. rather ironically, that line of thinking ("of villainy and despair, beholden to criminals and in fear of their lives every day") describes the mindset and rational of most US gun owners to why they need guns: because they are scared and fearful of the world around them.

we invite you to join the rest of us in the modern world, and give up your fear.
we're doing just fine out here.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[tehcyder]

A law professor probably would, but that doesn't make him right... it means he sees the world through man-made laws.

There are only man-made laws, unless you can somehow prove that God exists.

Slavery was once legal, it still exists in the world. Is that ok?

Or is it wrong and a violation of human rights, regardless of the law?

The point is that until enough people decided slavery was wrong and made it illegal, the imaginary "rights" of the slaves (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or whatever) were completely meaningless.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[fche]

"people who like guns are strange and not to be entirely trusted"

Do you tell that to the face of police officers or soldiers or security guards who carry?

Re: Fundamental right?????

[fche]

"Canada [...] don't allow you to carry a concealed revolver around with you"

Some members of the political elite are given carry permits.

"there is no right to shoot muggers or burglars in "self defence""

Of course there is - you can defend your life against muggers (those committing robbery) with any means at your disposal.

"there are serious restrictions on rifles, it's only really hunters who have guns."

Maybe in France. In Canada, there are many target-shooters and collectors too.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[leadacid]

Thanks for posting this. There are a lot of people who don't get the concept of rights, and sometimes I think there are a lot who really don't want them. For some people the idea of a society where there are no underlying principles and everything is decided based on what would be popular at that moment is very warm and fuzzy. Perhaps this is because that's the way governments operate when they're not constrained by a strong understanding of rights. That it doesn't work is lost on a lot of those who think that having a decent, comfortable existence is something to be ashamed of. I think the problem is that to understand rights you have to admit that the world is not what you thought, that there is no benevolent government that will take over for the benevolent god who didn't take care of you, and that you have to occasionally think.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[JesseMcDonald]

Article 1 Section 8's enumeration of Power of Congress are implicitly also exclusively *reserved* for Congress.

For example Congress is not merely empowered to establish currency; this task is reserved for congress. Congress is not merely empowered to declare wars or maintain the navy; the power to declare wars and maintain navies *rests* with congress. The states can't establish their own currencies, navies, nor declare their own wars.... nor can they establish their own post offices.

Nonsense. Section 8 only says what Congress is permitted to do. It doesn't mean, on its own, that any of those things are exclusive to Congress. That would mean, for example, that states couldn't establish their own courts ("To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court"). Most of what is in Section 8 only makes sense for Congress anyway, but the rest is fair game.

States don't get to declare war or maintain navies in peacetime because they are explicitly forbidden from doing so by Section 10, not because those things are listed as powers of Congress in Section 8. (Note that there's even an exception to that rule: "... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.") States have issued their own currencies in the past, and there is nothing wrong with that so long as they don't try to make them legal tender. (Or they can use gold and/or silver, which they are permitted to make legal tender.)

Post offices already exist apart from those established by Congress. What do you think UPS and FedEx are? Just because they can't (cost-effectively) carry first-class mail thanks to laws favoring the USPS doesn't mean that they aren't a form of private postal service. The same goes for "post roads" not established by Congress—both private and state-level.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

It's a case of the majority ruling.

Majority ruling becomes mob rule really quickly, without something to balance it out.

Lynching black people in the south used to be done due to "mob rule". It wasn't right back then, it isn't right today.

For instance, while there are undoubtedly some paedophiles who would want the age of consent abolished entirely, most of us think a law preventing you from fucking babies is a good idea.

And, yes, this does infringe on the paedophiles' "rights".

That would infringe on the child's rights not to be assaulted. But we already have laws against assault, so this just adds yet another law, to pile onto the millions of other laws. Because a politician somewhere was running for office.

As a side note, there is in fact a difference between an adult having sex with a minor, with consent, and an adult that assaults a minor by having sex with them without consent. But sadly, the law doesn't see that, one of the errors in the law that is hard to change because "think of the children".

A 26 year old man having sex with a 16 year old girl, when they are in a relationship and she is willing, is not at all the same as a 26 year old man raping a 16 year old girl.

Yet the law sees it largely the same way.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

It happens more often than you'd think. If you're getting your information from CNN, well that's your problem.

Guns are used in self-defense every day. Far more than mass shootings, but they don't end up on national media.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[ChrisMaple]

The right to free speech is the absence of prior constraint. In that regard, defamation is completely irrelevant.

The agreement of society has only minimal relation to what a right is. Rights are based on human life, that an innocent person may not be deprived of his life or the means to maintain and advance his life.

The only apparent limit on rights is the rights of another person, and I regard that as not properly called a limit.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[ChrisMaple]

There is no such thing as a right to vote. Voting is an indirect mechanism for maintaining rights through government action, voting is not the only possible mechanism for maintaining rights.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[ChrisMaple]

The homicide rate among white non-immigrant persons in the US is comparable to Western European nations. The murderers either imported or a part of the black gang-drug culture.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[ChrisMaple]

There is a world of difference between denying access to the internet and not providing access to the internet, and it's dishonest to attempt to equate the two.

The right to life prohibits me from preventing you from eating. It does not require me to feed you (parents of young children excepted).

Re:Fundamental right?????

[ChrisMaple]

You have misunderstood the Constitution. Congress is limited in funding the army to 2 years at a time, and that is the only limitation. The Constitution does not prohibit the army from existing in times of no war, nor does it prohibit the army from existing indefinitely.

The idea that after WWII the military was kept intact for primarily economic reasons is paranoid fantasy. By the time that occupying forces were no longer necessary to prevent Germany and Japan from restarting war, it was clear that the USSR, China and North Korea necessitated a continuing presence.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[ChrisMaple]

Freedom of the press means the right to not be prohibited from purchasing printing equipment and supplies and using them to create printed material and then distribute such material to willing recipients. An analogous freedom of internet would be a freedom to create an internet and offer it to willing customers.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[AK Marc]

If you don't have being a customer as a "right" then being able to print isn't a useful right.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[davester666]

children finding guns and killing themselves or someone around them, and legally owned guns used for murder greatly outnumber the number of cases of self-defense.

self-defense shootings make the news when they happen. and they don't happen very often.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[FlyHelicopters]

You're welcome to think that, but you'd be wrong. Many studies have been done on the subject, you're welcome to do the reading if you'd like to become educated.

But since you likely don't want to become educated, I'm sure you'll keep repeating the same false information over and over, proud of yourself for what you think you know.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Charcharodon]

Yes, because having to wait for kitten videos to down load is paramount to being whipped.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Many studies have been done on the subject, you're welcome to do the reading if you'd like to become educated.

If you wanted to become educated, you'd realize how many of those studies were debunked because of their bogus methodology.

But I suspect you don't want to do that, so you'll keep repeating the same false information over and over, proud of yourself for what you think you know.

Re: Fundamental right?????

[Anonymous Coward]

do you ever post anything that isn't racist?

Re:Fundamental right?????

[ultranova]

No, since that pretty explicitly means everyone having as much of everything as everyone else,

No, it means everyone having at least a certain baseline.

and that experiment was a catastrophic failure.

Nordic welfare states are the closest to "everyone having as much of everything as everyone else" this planet has seen in modern times, and seem to be doing just fine.

Re:Fundamental right?????

[Nutria]

at least a certain baseline.

That's not what "equal footing" means (to me, at least).

Nordic welfare states ... seem to be doing just fine.

I don't think so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-is-in-a-grave-situation-2015-6
http://www.thelocal.se/20150120/dark-forecast-for-swedish-economy

Telescreens

[Anonymous Coward]

The bandwidth will be needed for our telescreens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen

Curiously

[Burz]

No right to privacy, eh? If you're building a police state, it makes for a convenient combination of priorities.

For that matter, why not make free speech a fundamental right? Or has Cameron forgotten he's in the UK?

Re:Curiously

[burni2]

Carnerib has certainly not forgotten that he's in the UK.

That kind of "gift" comes with a catch:

Pull the live of more people into the internet, where you can easily observe them because they just share.

I just fear for those that do not accept this fundamental gift!

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he hasn't forgotten that.

That is why he is trying to change the UK to suit him by removing pesky things like human rights and privacy for the average poor pleb countrymen.

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

That the problem
Cameron knows exactly where he is
remember not to swear to loud when they rape you in the arse because you will lose al your credibility and people will walk away and look to the other side

Re:In America...

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the country with third world broadband and the highest internet prices in the world. I can see why you don't want the government intefering /sarcasm

24mbit.... or "up to" 24mbit?

[Gumbercules!!]

I wonder - is that 24mbit or is that "24 mbit" like my 3-4mbit ADSL is "up to 24mbit"?

Re:24mbit.... or "up to" 24mbit?

[Bongo]

I've just been told there's currently no guarantee of upload speeds. So my upload can go down to 512Kbit and it would still be "working". Fibre To The Cabinet is such a wonderful tech, even BT can't be arsed to try to make it work.

Re:24mbit.... or "up to" 24mbit?

[shellbeach]

Hmmm ... not limited to uploads, methinks. With my BT FTTC, the download speeds are all over the place as well :(

Re:24mbit.... or "up to" 24mbit?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

DSL no longer qualifies for broadband, even at it's max the upload is not even close to the current spec. The telecos are trying to do an end-run by "offering" LTE cellular internet, since there is nothing on the horizon that they even have in development that can hit the spec. Even the "gfast DSL" is only good for 50 meters.

Re:24mbit.... or "up to" 24mbit?

[Bongo]

I take it back, as we speak there are people out, pulling up manhole covers. It seems that the test the ISP can run, the "line test", doesn't tell the whole story. But if you can get an engineer comes to your site, they can run more detailed tests, and sure enough, he found something was out of whack with the copper running to the site. But the ISP seems to act like, well we ran a line test and it reported ok, so there's no problem and nothing we can do.

Re:24mbit.... or "up to" 24mbit?

[shellbeach]

Interesting! Maybe it's worth trying to get someone out to our place, too. I've long suspected that the quality of the copper wiring in the UK is pretty shoddy, but hadn't realised that BT would actually do something about it!

Re:24mbit.... or "up to" 24mbit?

[Bongo]

It might depend on which particular engineer you get. After finding that my internal cabling was fine, his tests found that the copper in the road was passing ok on almost all tests, except that it wasn't doing well at protecting itself from interference (the "AC balance" value was low).

There were some spare copper cables in the road, so they tested each one to see which was best, and they then connected me to the best one. Broadband speed has gone up 60%, and seems stable. So I'm very happy.

You think that's good?

[Iamthecheese]

Eat your heart out, UK

Also required...

[Anonymous Coward]

All citizens must post all of their details constantly over this fast broadband connections. Strong encryption will be disallowed. And when its too expensive to run the network out to rural places, guess who will happily step in to put that infrastructure in. Of course it will have built in taps. And to get that, there will be required installations of hardware other places...

Yet another PR move by Cameron's machinery again

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Censor internet by saying "Think of the Children"
2) Protest Triggered due to [1]
3) Back off
5) Make internet a "Fundamental Right" by saying "Think of the Children"
6) Implement [1] again which violates privacy, free speech by saying "Think of the Children"
7) Protest Triggered due to [1]
8) Issue PR statement it is no biggie after all people can live without "Internet" which is a "Fundamental Right"
9) Enjoy unobstructed spying on citizens & opposition.
10) Profit!!!

A right does not obligate anyone to act

[blindseer]

I have a right to free speech, does that mean the government must provide me with time on a radio station? I have the right to travel freely, does that obligate the government to buy me a car?

Let's get even more "fundamental"...

I have the right to eat, does that obligate the government to buy me food? I have the right to shelter, does that obligate the government to buy me a house?

A recent debate is that medical care is a "fundamental right". So I find myself in need of medical care, does that obligate the government to provide it? Who is the "government" anyway? Government is people. Do I have the right to another person's labor? Are other people obligated to provide me with their resources? That is what things like food, shelter, internet access, and medical care are, they are the time, labor, and resources of others.

I don't have a "fundamental right" to another person's stuff. Claiming such sounds a lot like, "to everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their abilities." I'd bet that a lot of people don't even know where that phrase comes from or what it means. That phrase is what brought us Marxism, communism, and socialism.

Let's assume we have a society that everyone gets what they need, and everyone provides to their ability, who enforces that? Who decides what people need and another can provide? Usually the answer is that the government does. Which means that phrase translates to, "the government takes and the government gives." Another way to put it is the often maligned phrase, "tax and spend".

If we claim that a fundamental right requires a government to provide it is the path to socialism, big government, perhaps "big brother", and certainly a path to poverty. To me a "fundamental right" means the government cannot interfere. A "fundamental right" to healthcare means a person should be able to obtain medical care from whomever that person chooses, at a price both provider and patient agree upon, and the government cannot interfere with the time, place, or manner in which it is provided.

If we declare internet access then what we should do is declare that it cannot be taxed. It also cannot be subsidized, because if it was then there would be inherent favoritism by the government to providers. Subsidizing "internet" means the government defines what the internet is and therefore who is subject to the subsidies. In other words it's a lot on how we treat the right of free speech. When the government starts to subsidize "free" speech then it's not free any more, there is the cost of speaking what the government wants others to hear in order to get the subsidy.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and just like Ayn Rand you'll undoubtedly end up on benefits when you grow up, because there's no way anyone so profoundly selfish as you will make it very far in life by yourself. I'm sure you also don't ever travel on roads that other people have built right? I'm sure you're not currently using the very internet that was designed and developed as the result of government funded R&D yes? I'm sure you don't drink water pumped through government subsidised infrastructure right?

We're a social species, our very existence has depended on the fact that we've worked together to survive over the years. There's your fundamental fucking right, it is our evolved way. If you aren't part of that you're an anomaly in the human race, and are not fit to survive.

Going back to fundamentals as you put it, you would be easy fodder for those humans who have decided to work together whilst you isolate yourself and make yourself a trivial threat to dispatch. You shouldn't be here. The only reason you are is because civilisation and it's social aspects protect even idiots like you.

If you don't understand that humans are a social species, and working together is in our DNA, then you have serious problems.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Bert64]

In the UK, there is already the right to have various other services (power, water, phone) at the same price anywhere in the country, so wether you live in london or the highlands of scotland you still get these services.
All they're changing, is "phoneline" now means that you must be able to get 10mbps internet access, ie they're just raising the minimum standard of what's already required.

Currently if you want a phoneline in a remote location, BT must install it for you and charge no more than they would for someone in a city, and that phoneline must be capable of carrying voice calls. This will result in an extremely long piece of copper that's not capable of handling ADSL at all.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

Your an idiot. I can participate in social systems without such systems being thrusted upon me via he use of violence. I don't need the government forcing me into paying private entities for instance to want to be part of a system that covers my medical bills in the event of an accident. With or without government mandating that I must get health insurance I would do so and did (self employed prior to changes in the law). Ultimately what we have is a system that benefits the few (corporation profiteers) justified by the greed of the many. If the system actually worked such that there weren't middle men taking a cut and it was completely voluntary I'd be more open to joining said system- the problem is that isn't how the US health care system works that has been mandated by the government.

Even though you very well may be able to argue that a government needs to exist to take care of stuff that we all need like roads this is tiny fraction of government expenditures. Funding is easy to come by to cover this small cost without interfering with individuals rights not to have violence used against them (ie taxes and other laws). The majority of our taxes go toward non-essential things including schools, social programs, military, and similar. I can pay for my child education if the government doesn't steal the portion of my income which makes me dependent on the government for my childs schooling. If the government didn't take my income to pay for "protections" of which they do not actually provide I could afford to pay for my own protection services. If the government didn't take my income to pay the military I could easily afford to acquire my own weapons and join a militia.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

I can participate in social systems without such systems being thrusted upon me via he use of violence.

You can, but you wont. Which is why the govt steps in.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a right to free speech

The article is about the UK - therefore this is irrelevant. Whether or not you have free speech doesn't affect us in the UK.

Even saying that, rights have provisos. You have the right to live - but even in a certain "free" country that has different political regions - they call them States - some of these "States" will irreversibly revoke that right under certain circumstances. (And this is ignoring things like war)

I have the right to travel freely, does that obligate the government to buy me a car?

The Government not buying you a car doesn't mean you can't travel. I'm assuming you can get around without a car...? (To quote Eric Idle, "I have two legs from my hips to the ground. When I move them I walk around") Other Forms Of Transport Are Available.

I have the right to eat, does that obligate the government to buy me food?

You have the right to eat? Really?

A recent debate is that medical care is a "fundamental right". So I find myself in need of medical care, does that obligate the government to provide it?

It's a shame, really. The NHS was quite good. Bits of it still are. Successive Governments have managed to dilute it - and the current lot would like nothing more than to privitise it - but knows they can't explicitly do that. They believe in privisation, even when it makes no sense (The recent big success story on the UK rail network - the one where customer satisfaction was particularly high and everything was mostly on time and running well was one of the publicly owned part - to a couple of firms that have little or no customer satisfaction and don't run on time. They'll probably actually end up costing the Government in subsidies where they were making them money)

As it is, the buildings don't typically belong to the hospitals in question - a previous Government set up PFI (Where a third party gets the building built and then that particular hospital pays rent) on hospitals and the last lot (That were partly the current lot and partly the lib dems) said that this was terribly inefficient (It is - it costs far, far more for the hospital in question) and then continued with the deals, regardless.

Who is the "government" anyway? Government is people.

Yes, we're all in this together. Except when there are some laws for MPs and some laws for everybody else. (The 2 main ones I'm thinking of are that the MPs have double the pension allowance of everybody else (I know, potentially, they may only be in power for a short period of time but - really) and the Wilson doctorate. (MPs communication is protected - because there may be whistleblowers. Except that only works on the MPs. What if somebody wanted to whistleblow on an MP? Only the MP is protected, not the source. If the MP is *okay* with the person being traced...)

That phrase is what brought us Marxism, communism, and socialism.

And is socialism so bad and terrible? No system is perfect. You need bits and pieces of all of them to work properly.

Let's assume we have a society that everyone gets what they need, and everyone provides to their ability, who enforces that? Who decides what people need and another can provide Usually the answer is that the government does. Which means that phrase translates to, "the government takes and the government gives."

Indeed. But where we're on a planet where a very small number of people have the same total wealth as half of the planet, would taking more money from that very small number of people be a bad thing? What are they going to do with it anyway?

To me a "fundamental right" means the government cannot interfere. A "fundamental right" to healthcare

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[blindseer]

Indeed. But where we're on a planet where a very small number of people have the same total wealth as half of the planet, would taking more money from that very small number of people be a bad thing?

Yes, that would be a bad thing. People have the right of property. If the government can simply declare that something I own is now something they own is the destruction of the right of property.

What are they going to do with it anyway?

This is delicious. Somehow we are allowed to simply take stuff from the wealthy, presumably because they are greedy, because... why? Is not taking stuff from someone else arbitrarily also greedy? They own that stuff so what they do with it should not be my or your concern.

It cannot be taxed? Wouldn't not paying tax be a form of subsidy?

Perhaps. It would also be a means of subsidy that would be about as fair as we can get. We need only establish that the product or service falls into something "fundamental" and therefore is free of any government interference. At a minimum any product or service that is "fundamental" but not declared so by the government should be taxed no more or less than any other common product or service.

You have the right to eat? Really?

I presume that any free nation would recognize the right to live. That would include basic biological functions like eating, drinking, breathing, etc. I think I understand your confusion. You seem to assume that a right compels a government to provide. It does not. My right to eat means that the government cannot interfere with my ability to grow crops on my own land, purchase food from another, dictate what I may consume, and likewise cannot interfere with my ability to provide food to others. If you believe that a right obligates a government to act then you would be confused because very few people expect the government to provide the populace with the food it requires.

The person gets to choose the price that the provider and patient agree upon. So... the Government gets no tax on that at all? Really? Not even VAT?

In most every society I've seen on earth the government recognizes that people need to eat. In order to assure that the government does not interfere with people getting the food to live we see that food is not taxed. If we declare that medical care is equally protected under the law as a necessary aspect of the right to live then medical care should also not be taxed.

The Government can and certainly will interfere. In everything. (They are generally interested in politics - and as an advert here a few years ago said - "If you're not into politics, you're not into anything." Or, as I prefer to think of it "We will meddle in everything")

Just because the government can does not mean it should.

You'd generally want your Government to be interested in somebody trying to give health care in a sewer (The place) or operations being done by somebody who is claiming to be a doctor who isn't. (The manner)

No, I wouldn't. If someone is injured in a sewer then I'd want them to get medical care immediately. If you make a blanket statement that no person is to provide medical care outside of a licensed and inspected medical care facility then emergency care is impossible.

Claiming to be a "doctor" is misrepresentation, and has little to do with getting proper medical care. If *I* deem someone qualified to perform surgery on me then that should be my decision alone. This is also why health care costs so much in many parts of the world. The costs of satisfying the government that one is qualified to be a surgeon is so high that the only way to recover that cost is through exceedingly high fees of those that provide the service. The costs are also so high that a person typically cannot fund this process on their own, they need to get

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[blindseer]

I replied to this post earlier but then decided it was likely too long for most people to bother to read. Here's a much shorter version.

The Government can and certainly will interfere. In everything. (They are generally interested in politics - and as an advert here a few years ago said - "If you're not into politics, you're not into anything." Or, as I prefer to think of it "We will meddle in everything")

Just because the government can does not mean it should. Might does not equal right.

You'd generally want your Government to be interested in somebody trying to give health care in a sewer (The place) or operations being done by somebody who is claiming to be a doctor who isn't. (The manner)

My body, my choice. I should be able to choose what kind of care I get, whom should provide it, where that happens, and when. So long as we both agree upon the terms of the transaction then the government should not be able to interfere. With something as fundamental like medical care that means the government should not be able to tax it either.

If you want to see how taxation can destroy then look at ethanol. Prohibition of alcohol destroyed the alternative fuel hobbyist. Taxation upon it, and subsidies to it, keeps it from becoming more than a means to buy votes in the corn belt. That alone is something that I feel set back alternative energy by a century. Taxation, regulation, and subsidy of healthcare is going to destroy that industry too. There are already many examples of medical advancements we'd see by now if it weren't for government "oversight" of medical care.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

It is your right, if you want to deploy your own home-brewed radio station and don't broadcast in any restricted freqs. Anyone can do it, for under $1000. No one will probably hear you, so you'll have to buy everyone receivers too. It's within your capabilities to broadcast even on FM easily, just beware the FCC and Clearchannel.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[AmiMoJo]

They want universal access so that they can deliver government services via the internet and shut down local offices and call centres. It will ultimately save taxpayers money and also help our struggling internet services sector grow. At the moment our TV broadcasters can't even deliver YouTube quality video, our infrastructure is so bad and so expensive...

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Kjella]

A recent debate is that medical care is a "fundamental right". So I find myself in need of medical care, does that obligate the government to provide it? Who is the "government" anyway? Government is people. Do I have the right to another person's labor? Are other people obligated to provide me with their resources? That is what things like food, shelter, internet access, and medical care are, they are the time, labor, and resources of others.

I don't have a "fundamental right" to another person's stuff. Claiming such sounds a lot like, "to everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their abilities." I'd bet that a lot of people don't even know where that phrase comes from or what it means. That phrase is what brought us Marxism, communism, and socialism.

Negative right = the government will not interfere. Positive right = the government will secure your right. If you're absolutely against positive rights, you're against many fundamental rights like the rule of law. If we can raise taxes for police, lawyers og judges to keep you from being murdered, why can't we raise taxes to keep you from starving, thirsting, freezing to death or dying for trivially cured injuries or disease? What you're rebelling against isn't socialism, it's civilization and democracy. It doesn't have to be pinko commie land, you didn't opt in to US law. You didn't opt in to the US tax code. They're part of society and you want out, a place where the government takes nothing "by force" even though it has public consent is a place with no government at all.

I have a right to free speech, does that mean the government must provide me with time on a radio station? I have the right to travel freely, does that obligate the government to buy me a car?

If there was no public roads, your "right to travel freely" would end at the end of your driveway. From there on out it would be a private conglomerate of road owners subject to their terms and conditions for use. Oh and for bonus points they'd also control any water and sewage pipes, electricity, phone, coax or fiber lines going in or out of your city block. What effectively lets you travel is that there's a whole lot of land that's a little bit yours - public property, provided and maintained by the government. If you want to write a letter to your Congressman the US postal service is compelled to deliver it. The phone service is a common carrier and can't refuse to connect you.

Those aren't rights though, they're services provided on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis - and in some cases even subsidized - to provide opportunities to exercise those rights. And they're not free, you still have to pay postage and phone bills and get your own car - unless you take public transport that is also not free. Are they interfering in a free market? Absolutely. The postage clearly doesn't accurately reflect the actual geographic costs of sending mail, that is by design. How you manage to twist that into subsidies becoming propaganda tools? The postal service doesn't bill by the content, nor does the phone company and the electricity company doesn't ask what you plugged in. By your logic, we have to shut down the public roads because they encourage driving over flying.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow we are allowed to simply take stuff from the wealthy, presumably because they are greedy, because... why? Is not taking stuff from someone else arbitrarily also greedy?

You will find, I think, that in reality "arbitrarily" does not apply to the takings of which you discuss. Nor should you presume that the wealthy are taxed because they are greedy.

I don't get it when people use words like this, it's like they're not even aware of the real discussion, but stuck off in some tangent that others have long since moved past. No wonder you have to ask "why" when you aren't even showing that you've paid much attention to the conversation.

Try to recognize that we've moved past the "arbitrarily" part, we don't even take stuff simply because somebody is greedy, but have other reasons when it is done. Your remarks, well, they're simply an asinine bit of rhetoric, superficially appealing, but ultimately lacking the depth to address the real substance of any actions actually taken.

Do you want to ask questions about taxes without the loaded perspective, or can you find out about them on your own?

They own that stuff so what they do with it should not be my or your concern.

Why? First off, how do they own it? What determines ownership? Where is that line drawn?

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, what someone does with something can matter quite a lot in a way that concerns you and me. Turns out what you do, can impact others.

Hence why ownership often becomes a concern for others.

Let me know what other fundamental concepts of interacting with others you need explained.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. But where we're on a planet where a very small number of people have the same total wealth as half of the planet, would taking more money from that very small number of people be a bad thing?

Yes, that would be a bad thing. People have the right of property. If the government can simply declare that something I own is now something they own is the destruction of the right of property.

Okay - so what you want is no government and no taxes? - after all I was specifically talking about taxes - and the government (Including things like law enforcement (Or running the franchises; thereof)) needs to be paid for somehow. (Unless you're suggesting charitable donations?)

And there are certain things you are not allowed to own - so the government, via police officers and animal enforcement agencies, and other people (e.g. debt collectors) can remove.

What are they going to do with it anyway?

This is delicious. Somehow we are allowed to simply take stuff from the wealthy, presumably because they are greedy, because... why? Is not taking stuff from someone else arbitrarily also greedy? They own that stuff so what they do with it should not be my or your concern.

Generally because they have more stuff than they could spend in their entire lifetime and you've got to ask how they managed to accrue that amount? Sure, if the government in question is taking the money to line their own pockets, (And I don't disagree that that will happen) it is greed. On the otherhand, if it's there to pay for the good of the country, it's not necessarily greed, and you appear to be arguing that it is. You need money to run a country. You need money to run the government that runs the country.

There is a happy medium. There was a point when any income above a certain amount (That is: the part of the money below that amount is taxed at different rates depending on bands) was taxed at 90% in the UK. That lead some people above that tax band relocating abroad. 90% does seem a bit high. It is currently 40%.

It cannot be taxed? Wouldn't not paying tax be a form of subsidy?

Perhaps. It would also be a means of subsidy that would be about as fair as we can get. We need only establish that the product or service falls into something "fundamental" and therefore is free of any government interference. At a minimum any product or service that is "fundamental" but not declared so by the government should be taxed no more or less than any other common product or service.

If it's fundamental, the government will interfere - after all, at the very minimum, you have to make sure people other than the government handle it properly.

You have the right to eat? Really?

I presume that any free nation would recognize the right to live. That would include basic biological functions like eating, drinking, breathing, etc. I think I understand your confusion. You seem to assume that a right compels a government to provide. It does not. My right to eat means that the government cannot interfere with my ability to grow crops on my own land, purchase food from another, dictate what I may consume, and likewise cannot interfere with my ability to provide food to others. If you believe that a right obligates a government to act then you would be confused because very few people expect the government to provide the populace with the food it requires.

The Government recognises a right to live - there is a wellfare system, after all. Your "right to eat" would be part of that and not a thing on its own.

The person gets to choose the price that the provider and patient agree upon. So... the Government gets no tax on that at all? Really? Not even VAT?

In most every society I've seen on earth the gover

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? First off, how do they own it? What determines ownership? Where is that line drawn?

For money, at very least in the UK, the thing that people own is intangible. They don't own the money, they own what the money represents.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the government can does not mean it should. Might does not equal right.

Indeed. Conversely, just because a government should act, it doesn't mean it will. Or can.

My body, my choice. I should be able to choose what kind of care I get, whom should provide it, where that happens, and when. So long as we both agree upon the terms of the transaction then the government should not be able to interfere.

I'm sure many well meaning, convincing (but untrained) people will be willing to take your money and operate on you.

With something as fundamental like medical care that means the government should not be able to tax it either.

Well, I don't know if private healthcare is taxed in the UK - never used it - but healthcare is considered so fundamental here that it's paid for via taxes.

If you want to see how taxation can destroy then look at ethanol. Prohibition of alcohol destroyed the alternative fuel hobbyist. Taxation upon it, and subsidies to it, keeps it from becoming more than a means to buy votes in the corn belt. That alone is something that I feel set back alternative energy by a century. Taxation, regulation, and subsidy of healthcare is going to destroy that industry too.

They don't always do everything right. (I could mention things like whistleblowers in the NHS being hounded out, investigations being brushed under the carpet, the jet engine patent being sold off and the current thing about encryption) I don't always trust them.

Doesn't mean they're always wrong about everything, either.

There are already many examples of medical advancements we'd see by now if it weren't for government "oversight" of medical care.

I've also heard of examples of large pharmaceutical companies buying smaller ones to silence certain lines of research. Not sure whether that's true or not.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

That's BS cause I have and do as exemplified by my enrolment in health insurance prior to any requirement for which was NOT forced upon me by an employer or government.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why libertarians are stupid.

at no point does it require that we force others to give up the fruits of their labor.

or do you believe that countries with socialized medicine have enslaved doctors?
cause, news flash, they haven't. they still get paid pretty well.

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[Anonymous Coward]

^^^ Danger: delusional libertarian

Re:A right does not obligate anyone to act

[tehcyder]

People have the right of property

Only if society says they do.

Doesn't surprise me

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they meant to snoop on everybody if people don't have it?

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, most people see the main effect of having broadband as the government snooping on them, or possibly the ability to be entertained, informed and conduct everyday life on the web.

Just like last time, and the time before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like £1 billion has been spent getting the "Internet to everyone", and by spent I mean given to BT who are the only company who actually own the lines. Sure, you can choose your provider, but they all pay rent to BT. Even ignoring the dubious delivery speed advertised in most areas there's just no way that the majority of people could get that kind of speed without fibre and that's hardly been rolled out nationwide. I'm on an 80 MBit connection but I get about 18 to 20 at best. There is literally nothing faster available where I live, no plans to increase what's available, but apparently I'm already up to speed by their new targets because my line supports up to 80 MBit.

I'm not overly dissatisfied with the UK government except on a few issues (please stop spying on everyone, it's a useless endeavour anyway) but this is the same old nonsense that we hear every once in a while and it never comes to pass.

The 83% claim is bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, it includes homes where the cabinet near them has been upgraded, but NOT whether broadband is offered to those houses.

200m away there is a cabinet claiming "Fibre broadband now available here". Within another 200m there are three more cabinets claiming this too. So my area is "broadband access" in that 83%. However, none of the homes have fiber broadband. They don't even have ADSL2 which gets you to 16Mbps "in theory".

Moreover, what would be the point of 24Mpbs connection if you're limited to, say, 1GB (as you get with one broadband provider) or even 10GB per month? Of course, BT will make you pay high prices for that connection after you used up your "acceptable allocation". And if you buy their "unlimited" version you STILL have an "AUP" that limits it arbitrarily. After which you're charged hugely and possibly kicked out, meaning the house is still connected for BT's stats to get government handouts for connectivity, but your house cannot use it because you're denied.

Oh piss off with the histrionics, you pansy.

[Anonymous Coward]

There didn;t used to be a human right to freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How much would you have been all "When EVERYTHING is a fundamental right, that completely devalue the definition of fundamental"?

If your "riposte" is along the lines of "that isn't defining EVERYTHING", then neither is this.

Hence overblown histrionics.

STFU you pansy and suck it up. When EVERYTHING is being defined as a human right, THEN you can complain without it being hysterical bullshit.

Farms need internet access

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a big problem with lack of internet access on farms, not just in the UK. The problem is that the European Union has given each cow a unique ID. Cow breaders then have to report on their lifestock through the internet. However ADSL and similar is a town/city option and quite a number of farms are stuck with 56k and whoever made the webpage to report lifestock is using something way faster. This mean in order to log in, it has to download so much that it times out before it finishes as 56k bandwidth simply isn't enough. Some farmers are then forced to have somewhere else where they can connect to the internet and have to drive there whenever they have something to report and sure enough they waste quite a lot of time doing so.

If you want businesses like farms to exist outside city limits in the 21th century, you need to provide them with internet access. In fact if we turn it around and let ISPs decide on their own who can get internet access and who can't, then we could end up with severely reduced food production. Supplying rural population with internet for their own amusement is not important for the country's economy. Supplying the farms is.

Personally (in Denmark) I have seen that rural areas without proper ADSL connections have become the stronghold of optic fiber. Distance doesn't matter for the signal and digging is cheap when you don't have to repave the sidewalk or anything like that. As a result I'm stuck with max 20/2 Mb in a town, my sister with 15/1.5 in the city while my parents in a small village (with no sidewalks) has the option of 500/500. They decided on 15/15 as that is enough for them and it's the cheapest of the 3 connections. It's also the connection with the lowest latency. Still there is farms too remote to get optic fiber through free marked ISPs and the government just passed a law (or plan to pass?) to allow sutracting establising costs from taxes in such a case (with a capped max).

Re:Farms need internet access

[ColdWetDog]

It's a big problem with lack of internet access on farms, not just in the UK. The problem is that the European Union has given each cow a unique ID. Cow breaders then have to report on their lifestock through the internet. However ADSL and similar is a town/city option and quite a number of farms are stuck with 56k and whoever made the webpage to report lifestock is using something way faster. This mean in order to log in, it has to download so much that it times out before it finishes as 56k bandwidth simply isn't enough. Some farmers are then forced to have somewhere else where they can connect to the internet and have to drive there whenever they have something to report and sure enough they waste quite a lot of time doing so.

Uh, no. This is problem with the yoyo designing the system. Sure, if you want an AJAX page with blinkies, a 2 MB picture of a generic cow and a pile of PDF's you need decent broadband. If all you are trying to do is to log some data into a remote server, not so much. We've done projects like that over satellite phones for bog's sake.

Now, I think it great if rural folk have access to high speed Internet - I live in the middle of fucking nowhere and have (expensive) 10 down / 1 up. We even have symmetric and redundant 50/50 links at the hospital. But you don't need that to keep track of cows.

Re:Farms need internet access

[Anonymous Coward]

This is problem with the yoyo designing the system. Sure, if you want an AJAX page with blinkies, a 2 MB picture of a generic cow and a pile of PDF's you need decent broadband.

You are wrong. You need animated images and stuff to impress the politicians that you made the best solution, hence convincing them to buy the software. Designing software to work on the existing hardware is a way of thinking for engineers, not politicians with great visions.

Sure you could greatly reduce the need for bandwidth if that is your design goal. You could even skip using a browser based system and run custom code on the client to use a custom protocol to reduce overhead to a bare minimum, in which case 56k would be enough, though I wouldn't rule out browser based solutions if you really want those. However the main problem with issues like this is that the users have no saying in what goes on. A farmer has to report or lose his license. He can only use the system given to him by the government. If it doesn't work on his connection, then it will be his problem and he will go bankrupt if he doesn't find a solution.

My guess is that providing at least 10 Mb to everybody would be easier than to make everything 56k compatible. If this reporting system becomes 56k friendly, then the same issue shows up with the tax report system, then the home banking and so on. The list of pages mandatory for business (as farms are) is quite big by now and none of them ever thought about 56k when they were designed. It would be interesting to see costs of adding 56k support now vs cost of ensuring broadband to everybody. Some possibly tax paid cables might be extremely cheap compared to what is saved on software development costs.

Nobody said every single farm needs an optic fiber. Some rural areas are already covered by some directed beam wifi setup. The price is actually quite good, though all users in the area shares the same bandwidth, meaning it only works well in lightly populated areas.

What good is fast internet?

[Opportunist]

What good is a speed increase if I am not allowed to use it for what I want? I sure as fuck don't need faster internet to get more ads that I must not block. I sure don't need faster access of pages that don't interest me because the ISPs may throttle those that do with impunity.

Most of all, I do not need faster access. I need more secure access. Which you buffoons actually want to outlaw.

Don't dip the turd you try to feed us in chocolate and pretend like it's tasty.

Re:What good is fast internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they mention somewhere that this speed increase comes with more restrictions?
Fast, restricted internet is clearly better than slow, similarly restricted internet.

Re:What good is fast internet?

[Opportunist]

I'd rather have them spend time on removing the restrictions. Living in a prison cell ain't going to be any better because there's cake for dinner now.

80/20 rule

[thegarbz]

What ever happened to the good old 80/20 rule? 80% of the coverage with 20% of the effort.

Every country I have seen which declares that internet MUST be available to ALL citizens has subsequently shot themselves in the fiscal foot with horrendous cost blow-outs for installations. At some point someone must realise that someone living on a farm 2km from high neighbour is unlikely to be able to expect the same kind of services and systems available to inner city tech hubs.

I always laugh at the concept in Australia. The NBN was supposed to provide high-speed internet access to everyone. Some of these people don't even have power infrastructure, but we're damn well going to spend billions launching satellites and digging fibre to make sure their 90s era laptop running from the alternator on a 40 year old tractor is going to have broadband!

Re:80/20 rule

[Ash-Fox]

Every country I have seen which declares that internet MUST be available to ALL citizens has subsequently shot themselves in the fiscal foot with horrendous cost blow-outs for installations. At some point someone must realise that someone living on a farm 2km from high neighbour is unlikely to be able to expect the same kind of services and systems available to inner city tech hubs.

Unlike other countries, the UK has a cabinet system that replaces the need to build exchanges everywhere like other countries, this makes the cost substantially cheaper. On top of that, a lot of these cabinets already exist from pre-existing technology that required them on BT's network. Dark fibre was laid out throughout most of the UK already a few decades ago providing much of the infrastructure needed for bandwidth requirements for access to all these cabinets. What generally happens these days is an extra cabinet is placed next to the pre-existing one and patched into the other cabinet with all the new equipment. High speed broadband is provided through technologies like VDSL and VDSL2 which can use the existing copper cables to the house to provide fibre speeds. BT Openreach (a subsidiary of BT that rents out their lines to other providers - Practically everyone goes over BT lines) is trialing a Fiber to the Premises currently and intends to offer it to all that have existing VDSL/VDSL2 connectivity at the setup price of laying down a new cable to the house.

In summary, it's actually feasible in the UK at not such a great cost.

You can get some further information off this training video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I always laugh at the concept in Australia.

I think it's unrealistic in Australia too.

NBN is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Aus the NBN is a fundamental failure. Underdelivers. Over budget. Over time. Legally flawed. Our ISPs could have built a fibre network for cheaper in less time. Worst of all, after the NBN is complete we still have a copper network and Telstra. Billions wasted.

"Rural"?..

[tomxor]

The latest plan is directed at the "last 5 percent" — such as people in remote areas

They will have to redefine "remote" because live the 10th largest city in the UK and the only option i have is a 3Mbit connection, they all go to the same cabinet regardless of what ISP you choose.

Rights

[frnic]

Unless you believe in God given rights, every right is simply something the government guarantees to you.

Society over time decides what it feels everyone should be entitled to - and entitled is not a four letter word.

We started with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Since then we added a few, everyone can vote, everyone can work, speech, etc.

As society changes more things become "rights" - ie. things we as a society feel all of us would benefit by having - like education, healthcare, living wage.

The internet is widely integrated into all walks of life in all industrialized nations. I won't list the benefits it brings, since Anonymous Cowards want to prove that dial up is "good enough" and you can live without it even.

The point is, rights are not about things you can't live without, rights are about those things we as a society believe everyone should have.

Re:Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Dial-up was always good enough for me, the only reason I got DSL was that it became as cheap as dial-up.

I even torrented over dial-up!

Re:Rights

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The point is, rights are not about things you can't live without, rights are about those things we as a society believe everyone should have.

And who is this "we as a society"? You mean the 10-20% of society that usually votes for the winning party or candidate? Parties and candidates subject to extensive corporate lobbying and political pressures? Representatives that have approval ratings in the low teens? The idea that political decisions in a democracy represent the universal desires or preferences of "we as a society" is a delusion or an outright self-serving lie.

There are forms of government that guarantee the rights that "we as a society believe everyone should have": fascism and socialism. A free society, on the other hand, is mainly concerned with curbing the excesses and abuses of power by government, while leaving the people free to pursue their own dreams.

Re:Rights

[misexistentialist]

every right is simply something the government guarantees to you

Obviously not true, since the government gives nothing, only takes. How is it possible to have a "right to internet" when you will be dragged out of a home you bought if you can't pay taxes? Do they leave your wifi powered up?

Re:Rights

[Ash-Fox]

The internet is a service, someone's labor for which they need compensation.

Currently, most Internet in the UK is provided via BT Openreach's lines, exchanges and cabinets with the exception of Virgin Media (which does provide some services over BT Openreach still). I think the idea behind Cameron's statement is that BT Openreach should sufficiently penetrate the entire country sufficiently with fast broadband. Making it possible for you to have fast broadband if you want (from practically any provider you want).

It worries me that so many politicians are giving away our resources as if it's a gift (we're paying for it after all, not the politician) and calling that "gift" a right.

The government is generally responsible for ensuring infrastructure exists in a country, such as road, electric supply etc. This isn't really a new concept.

A program to make internet available to all areas is certainly a better way to frame the proposal (but not for free).

First sentence of the article:

The PM is to introduce a "universal service obligation" for broadband, giving the public a legal right to request an "affordable" connection.

If you read the article further, it even states:

"Access to the internet shouldn't be a luxury, it should be a right - absolutely fundamental to life in 21st Century Britain," he said.

Did you even read the article?

Entitlement

[BradMajors]

Not a right, an entitlement. A right is something the government can not stop you from doing. An entitlement is something the government must provide you. The distinction is important. Governments do not provide anyone with rights. Governments can only take rights away.

Re:Entitlement

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the entitlement crowd cannot recognize this. Everyone is a special snowflake in their minds, deranged as they are, and logic plays no part in their reasoning. Read their arguments and apply classic logical principles, you will quickly see that they have no concept of it, and when countered by enlightening them about how their argument is illogical, they redirect.

Re:Entitlement

[lostdistance]

Agreed. If a resource has to be provided by another person (e.g. via taxes) then that resource is an entitlement, not a right.

Rights are free. Entitlements cost money.

Re:Entitlement

[Anonymous Coward]

There are both positive and negative rights. "An entitlement" is an artifact of a specific implementation of a positive right.

Re:Entitlement

[tehcyder]

Not a right, an entitlement. A right is something the government can not stop you from doing. An entitlement is something the government must provide you. The distinction is important. Governments do not provide anyone with rights. Governments can only take rights away.

"The government" can stop you from doing anything they like. Also, there are no pre-existing rights, only systems created by human beings.

Wild animals don't have governments, and they don't have rights.

Ah, but...

[bagofbeans]

...the US postal service has strong law protecting the service and customers thereof from tampering, misuse etc.

Interception is also non-scalable.

None of this is true for internet comms. If governments can push citizens to use the tubes for all their comms, research, media, then the automated analysis will make picking out and tracking any type of person from child-molester type criminal threat to MLK or anti-TPP-organising political threat very easy.

Why is this a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just increases the size of GCHQ's net to include more of the population?

The Cost?

[JimSadler]

If it is a right will the poor have to pay for it? The nature of the net is that one needs the connection where they live as ideas like having access to a PC in a library do not work out so well for many computer users.

Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it costs money it isn't a right.

A Public Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Infrastructure like roads, bridges, telepone/power/internet lines should be considered a "public good"; that it helps society.

It wouldn't make sense to call roads themselves a "fundamental right". Travelling along public roads is a fundamental right (though, you can't travel on an Interstate without an appropriate vehicle).

Calling everything a right dilutes the concept.

Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

'This is the latest pledge from Prime Minister David Cameron, who said access to the internet "should be a right." '

But healthcare and welfare should not be under his appalling regime.

Fundamental Tool

[Anonymous Coward]

That should read fast, constantly and omnisciently monitored broadband, I believe.

Rights

[neonv]

A right is a liberty, a freedom to do something without the government interfering.

The internet is a service, someone's labor for which they need compensation.

You never have a right to another person's services or goods. At best you could say it's a good idea to pool resources. Even that involves forcing those who do not want to pool resources into giving up their resources. As a result, a byproduct of pooling resources is a gradual reduction of individuals choosing what to do with their own resources.

It worries me that so many politicians are giving away our resources as if it's a gift (we're paying for it after all, not the politician) and calling that "gift" a right. In this case, I can get internet access without the government "gifting" me with it. A program to make internet available to all areas is certainly a better way to frame the proposal (but not for free).

Who is paying for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh right! They will just tack on the cost to everyone Else's bill. Just like they do on my phone bill for all of the scum who have the "right" to not have to pay for service. Thanks again western Socialism!

Next Step will be ...

[RockDoctor]

Obligatory Internet Access.

Not being online will not be an option. Don't have a (landline) phone or a computer ... please opt out using the web page at notme.gov.uk ....

It's like this thing that you have an address. Not having an address, or having a location which changes from night to night is not a permissible option. (I have a friend who is just about finished building his retirement home - a mobile home. He's an Bolshy anti-government person, who happily pays his taxes. But he doesn't fit into approved boxes, so he's an un-person.