
Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right (2009) - dgudkov
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html
======
TomGullen
1MB as a legal right seems a little dubious, 100MB as a legal right seems even
more dubious.

I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for
numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB
connection offer over a 1MB connection?

You can enjoy engage and benefit from the vast majority of important stuff on
the Internet with a 250kb connection.

~~~
elithrar
> I understand that having access to the Internet is an important thing for
> numerous reasons, but why the arbitrary speeds? What benefits does a 100MB
> connection offer over a 1MB connection?

It's a marketing/political thing. Most users think that a fatter pipe ==
faster connection, when of course we know that's not the case. Heck, most of
the time when you hit higher port speeds it's a case of the content server on
the other end not being able to saturate your 100Mbit pipe anyway!

Governments promise these "minimum" speeds or "universal access" as an attempt
to appear in touch with technology.

For context, the Government here in Australia has started rolling out a
national fibre network (National Broadband Network; NBN), with tiered _port_
speeds of 12/25/50/100Mbps. It's going to be a shock to many (and ISP's are
going to bear the brunt of the complaints) when people realise their 50Mbit
connection isn't going to give them 5-6MB/s throughput from any/every source.

~~~
GlennS
I've had 50Mb/s for a few years now (UK). It doesn't protect your from network
screw-ups, packet-loss or high latency, but it can still be really nice to
have.

It opens up the possibility of 'What shall we watch tonight? Oh we don't have
that yet? I'll just grab it now. Should be done in ten minutes.' Most digital
distribution services seem able to handle uploading that fast these days.

So the main uses are downloading of videos and computer games. Not life-
changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty
convenient.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point,
> but pretty convenient._ //

The _availability_ of some level of access though does appear to be worth
making universal (within the UK). Access to government services is
increasingly being focussed through the WWW. This can have the effect of
leaving behind those without a reasonable level of internet access available;
making services for that sector of society more difficult to reach (a
Trademark search say, or a check of the statute databases or ordering a book
from the library or checking up on the MP or ...).

If such a disparity of available services can be readily avoided then it seems
that it should be.

------
crazy1van
Calling access to a consumer good a "right" really cheapens the concept.

The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.

~~~
a_bonobo
Have you read the article?

>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2
kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a
capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second."

That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people.

What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this
formulation. What concept?

From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access
to food is already a human right
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food>) while it's not yet settled
100% that water is a human right
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water>)

~~~
crazy1van
>Have you read the article? >>the Finnish government said that no household
"would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering
broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second."
>That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people.

That's why I said _access_ to a consumer good and nothing about who pays. That
said, as far as I can tell, there isn't a western democracy that forbids their
people from buying internet access. So if this doesn't have anything to do
with assisting people to pay for it and they aren't banned from buying it
themselves, what does it do?

In reality this does have to do with assisting them to pay for it, because
mandating construction of broadband connections is just a roundabout way of
helping pay for it.

>What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this
formulation. What concept? >From my point of view, water and food could be
called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food>) while it's not yet settled
100% that water is a human right
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water>)

This is exactly what I mean. You are comparing getting internet access to
getting food and water. If you don't have food and water, you die. If you
don't have internet access, then yes you don't have access to the best, most
modern way to communicate. However, in a nation with free speech you have
access to many other ways to express yourself. I'm sure resourceful people
will find ways to exercise that right without mandating some telco run fiber
to within 2km of their house.

------
glaze
This cannot be implemented without violating property rights, so it's morally
wrong. The state should protect people's rights, not take them away.

~~~
AlisdairO
Maybe the Finns have a different idea of what makes a good society than you?

~~~
glaze
As a Finn, I don't like the idea that other people can vote to take away some
individual's rights, in this case, ISP's.

~~~
Cobrian
As a fellow Finn, I don't consider an ISP to be a person, but rather a service
provider, and as such I'm fine with the concept of (some of them) being forced
to have obligations rather than just the right to take our money.

~~~
spindritf
ISP is the property in this case, not a person. You're really forcing ISP's
owners to dispose of their property in a certain way. It may or may not be
right to do so but those are real people, not abstract concepts or legal
creations.

~~~
AlisdairO
You could use the same argument to prevent any corporate regulation -
including such noncontroversial ones as anti-monopoly regulation.

~~~
oleganza
First, anti-monopoly regulation is not noncontroversial. Second, why do you
think corporations are something other than a mode of cooperation of real
people? When you are a customer - you cooperate with other people by exchange
of money for the service. When you are a capitalist, you cooperate with others
by paying them for the services upfront before the product is sold. When you
are employee, you cooperate by renting your labor for money. And so on. Why do
some people think they are entitled to intervene in the other persons'
cooperation?

~~~
AlisdairO
Anti-monopoly regulation is pretty noncontroversial. Libertarianism is,
despite its popularity in places like HN, quite a fringe movement.

Do you think that the consequences of two entities cooperation is limited to
those two entities?

Further, and I'm sure you'll vehemently disagree with me, I don't think people
or corporations are islands. I don't resent owing society some cooperation,
and I have no problem with corporations being in the same boat - more so, in
fact, because as concentrators of power such regulation becomes more
necessary.

------
Ras_
Original article is three years old. Here's two more on the subject, both less
than month old. The first one also provides info about the scope of the plan
and its implementation (like "Private Roads Act, Highways Act and Rail Tracks
Act will be adjusted, so that cables can be placed within the infrastructure
in the most economic manner possible overall").

"The Government is to keep the hundred megabit objective to be achieved by
2015, which was set during the election period. By 2015, high-speed 100 Mbit/s
broadband connections will be available at no more than two kilometres from
all permanent places of residence."

<http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122>

In this news item, the Finnish Minister of Communications suggests that 10Mb
would become the new minimum standard before end of election term in 2015.

[http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+...](http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+capacity+could+be+raised+to+10+Mbit+nationwide/1329103903453)

------
darksaga
Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an
area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in
roughly the same sq mile area.

Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population
and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.

~~~
hartror
Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for
Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the
service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper
. . .

~~~
waterlesscloud
It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same
place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.

~~~
jarospisak
He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for
Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).

~~~
waterlesscloud
No.

If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head.

But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on
average you're laying more fiber per person.

~~~
sirclueless
I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence
should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.

~~~
waterlesscloud
But it's not.

Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread
throughout.

You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of
Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas.

So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor.

The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of
fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.

~~~
zzuser
The above is an invalid comparison. A better, more objective measure is linear
population density.

Miles of roads in Texas: 152,054 miles Miles of roads in Finland: 65,617 miles
( _)

Population of Texas: 25,674,681 Population of Finland: 5,375,276

Linear population density of Texas: ~169 persons per miles of road Linear
population density of Finland: ~82 persons per miles of road

Ergo, it is cheaper per head to provide wireline telecommunications services
in Texas than in Finland, when building out to the whole population, as the
linear population density is higher in Texas and most, if not all, permanent
residences and business are accessible by road.

Sources: <http://www.aaroads.com/texas/>
<http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas>

(_) This road mileage does not include private roads in Finland. Including
these roads would further lower the linear population density of Finland, but
these roads were excluded from the calculation as the majority of the private
roads are access roads to non-permanent recidency second homes and timer or
agriculture roads.

~~~
waterlesscloud
This really isn't a good measure since roads will be denser in urban areas and
less dense in rural areas, thus leading to exactly the same issues as directly
using population density.

But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two.
This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas.
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm>

~~~
zzuser
> This really isn't a good measure since roads will be denser in urban areas
> and less dense in rural areas, thus leading to exactly the same issues as
> directly using population density.

Please be so good as explaining you point better, I do not understand it. If
you are going to wire up every lot in the state, you will have to traverse all
roads in the state to do a cable drop to every lot in order to do so. What
does road density have to do with it?

When building wireline communication networks, the deciding factor costwise,
is the number of linear cable sheet miles. As such miles of road is a good
proxy for comparing deployment costs between locations.

Please note that I am discussing _wireline_ broadband. If you have you heart
set on wireless coverage, then we have to talk different measures, and even
there population density is not the tell all metric.

> But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of
> two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas.
> <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm>

My bad. However that does not still make it cheaper to build in Finland, it
merely brings up Texas and Finland to par on miles of road per population.
Several things still favour Texas in the cost per capita, such as: economics
of scale, ability to perform construction year around and no need to put
utilities under the frostline.

There are no technical or cost reasons for Texas to be unable to offer the
same level of broadband service as Finland. It all comes down to other
reasons, perhaps such as lack of political will in Texas.

~~~
waterlesscloud
A number of different factors at play.

Imagine a layout where cables do not have to follow roads.

Imagine a layout where one cable can serve buildings on two roads. Certainly
much, much easier when the buildings are dense.

Imagine a thousand people living in one building in the center of a thousand
square miles, served by one cable. Imagine a thousand people living one per
square mile in a thousand square miles. The population densities are the same.
The cabling costs are not.

~~~
zzuser
Imagination will take you very far, and in this case, very far from the matter
at hand. Texas and Finland are real places, not figments of imagination.

> Imagine a layout where cables do not have to follow roads. Imagine a layout
> where one cable can serve buildings on two roads. Certainly much, much
> easier when the buildings are dense.

Not very likely in the real world. Easements and rights of way are not
available or not readily available among arbitrary paths. In any case, even if
you were to cut through peoples back yards, you would still most of the time
just be following a parallellish path to the roads.

> Imagine a thousand people living in one building in the center of a thousand
> square miles, served by one cable. Imagine a thousand people living one per
> square mile in a thousand square miles. The population densities are the
> same. The cabling costs are not.

These are real places we are talking about. Have a look at a map.

------
Juha
I think defining broadband access like this allows them to move certain
legally required things to the internet age. I believe there are a lot of
small laws in Finland that say what the radio channel, newspaper or Tv channel
should provide. For example we actually have a law that during icehockey World
Championships our own matches should be broadcasted for free.

If enough people legally have access to a broadband internet, its easier to
make laws to offering certain services through the internet (certain
information delivery, services like taxes and maybe voting in the future).

------
vegardx
I think most people read too much into the speeds. What they are acutally
saying is that you now have a legal right to get a decent-ish connection at
any place in Finland. And this should be a right in any modern country, as so
many things revolve around having access to the Internet.

Example: In Norway we do our tax returns, apply for school, read up on
information about your properties, etc. You basically have to have access to
Internet.

------
pimeys
I still remember the fiasco of spending lots of tax money to build a DVB
television network. They were talking a lot of having a "callback channel" in
those set-top boxes and lots of interaction in TV programs.

Well, we had expensive television network while Sweden spent the same money
for better Internet connections.

------
pooriaazimi
Meanwhile, in my country, regular people can't have anything better than 128kb
(it's the law).

~~~
troels
what? where is that?

~~~
tommi
Iran <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran>

------
tigerweeds
fyi, article is 3 years old

------
xtiy
The voice of the people will be heard.

