Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.)
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.