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?????

[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?????

[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?????

[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?????

[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.

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: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.

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.

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.