Broadband Is Now A Legal Right In Finland
from the won't-see-three-strikes-there... dept
You may recall that, last year, Finland announced that broadband access should be considered a legal right. And, as of today, it's now official that every Finn now has a legal right to 1Mbps broadband. If you think that's going to make it difficult for the entertainment industry to get a "three strikes" policy in place in Finland, you're correct:"We will have a policy where operators will send letters to illegal file-sharers but we are not planning on cutting off access."According to the music industry, of course, this makes the Finnish government radical extremists. How dare they want to make sure everyone has broadband connectivity and the ability to communicate freely. How could that possibly be more important than one industry's increasingly obsolete business model?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, finland, legal right
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Teach Rogue States A Lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teach Rogue States A Lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
I'm blacklisting the France, U.K., U.S., China and Russia those countries have the worst bandwidth when transit goes through them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting off the net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cutting off the net
Thats going to kill three strikes in every country with due process. The court order part makes this three strikes scheme non-cost effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is broadband a legal right?
I agree that nobody should be kicked off the net, especially for something like file sharing. But making it a right makes no sense either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is broadband a legal right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who pays for it?
The government wants to ensure the public all have access to a particular service. Leaving the implementation aside, the basic concept seems wholly reasonable -- it is just the sort of thing governments are for.
This use of the term 'right' may offend various technical definitions, but it communicates the basic idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who pays for it?
Incorrectly naming something a right that cannot be actually be a right lessens the impact of arguments for actual rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who pays for it?
Incorrectly naming something a right that cannot be actually be a right lessens the impact of arguments for actual rights."
What do you think of the word "copyRIGHT"? Or is that different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who pays for it?
Broadband is not a right, the right not to have our connection severed based on accusations is a right, but actually having the connection is not a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who pays for it?
When AT&T was a monopoly they had to supply a phone to a person with a medical need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who pays for it?
AT&T may have had to give phones to people with a medical need, but that was probably due to the fact they were granted monopoly rights and not due to the right of people to have phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who pays for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finland knows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finland knows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe made a good point, fee based services are “rights” now? If you start down this road, aren't you just watering down what a "right" ought to be? I'm certainly not a lawyer, so if anyone is please chime in, but isn’t that a bad precedent to set when a "right" is sometimes this, but then its sometimes that? Not sure how all the systems work in Finland, but doesn’t this open the door for companies or organizations that currently provide other “rights” to start charging now?
I certainly think no one should have the right to arbitrarily drop your connection, especially on some trumped up file sharing charge, but last I checked you still can’t run into a crowded chat room and yell “fire”. Making broadband a “right”, so that the tool with which you broke the law remains in your hands is illogical. If you’re a Finnish pirate and it gets proven in a court of law, then you should lose your privileges to the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have the right to live in a house (one of the basic human rights even), but you still need to pay rent/mortgage/taxes.
You have the right to an education (also one of the basic human rights), but do you have free schools?
All this does, is give you the right to have unfettered access to the Internet. Even the most remote areas of Finland should now get access to the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I chat, every now and then, with people on high speed from fairly near the Arctic Circle so I'm taking on face value what they say.
We need to remember that this is a small, fairly populous and wealthy country by global standards.
The telephone network was built out to most of Finland prior to World War II in anticipation of a Soviet invasion. So that part of the infastructure has been there since then and has been followed by cable. Satellite providers are available all over Finland.
Cost, in this case, is minimal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, a right does not mean that you automatically have to *do* the thing you have a right to do, just that you have the right to do so if you please. Lots of Finnish people will still choose not to have broadband. It's just there as a guaranteed right should a Finn choose to exercise it.
"last I checked you still can't run into a crowded chat room and yell "fire""
FIRE!
Sorry, couldn't resist, but you either have your cliches mixed up or you're confused about what that means.
"the tool with which you broke the law remains in your hands is illogical"
Criminal vs. civil law is still an important distinction. The damage potentially done by removing access to broadband (and thus access to free speech, employment and communication) far outweighs whatever slim profits were jeopardised by downloading a few songs.
"If you're a Finnish pirate and it gets proven in a court of law"
Emphasis mine. The problem everyone has with the "3 strikes" rules is that this is not a consideration. When the industry decides to play fair and allow due process and actual evidence less flimsy than IP addresses to come into play, then we'll talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Footsteps...getting fainter...fainter still...door shuts...silence... ...
Hey everybody...is TAM gone yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TAM, why are you still supporting Mike with your traffic that helps him improve his ad revenue and exposure here? Shouldn't you leading by example and going somewhere else, maybe somewhere you might be mistaken for an intelligent human being with an actual point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi TAM, Just What Does This Have To Do With The Topic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still some room for oppression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The rest of your comment I disagree with. Schooling and healthcare are not rights, they are services provided by another individual. You have the right to trade with that individual for the service provided, but you do not have the right to that individuals service.
Freedom, or liberty, is a right. It is not a different concept, it is subsumed in the concept of rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the USA wants to call everything "freedoms", and only consider rights those that are in the original Bill of Rights, that's their prerogative. It's also merely arguing (regional) semantics and irrelevant to what the rest of the world considers rights, which may just very well be "something that nobody can keep you from doing or getting".
Are "visitation rights" inherent? That means that custody of kids during divorce inherent, which would make divorce inherent too. Or visiting your family at a hospital?
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"
Does that mean that double-jeopardy rights are inherent? How come? That doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finnish communications regulatory authority press release
http://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/index/asiointi-info/ajankohtaista/lehdistotiedotteet/2 010/P_27.html
Basically, certain telecommunication firms (26 in total) are named responsible for providing a certain minimum level of service within some municipalities of Finland as part of their license, and 1 Mbps Internet access is now one such minimum requirement. Customer will have to pay for the access, with 30-40 € given as reasonable example price. The 1 Mbps Internet requirement is for a fixed place of residence or business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NEWS FLASH: "Panu" reveals itself to be an ignorant BIGOT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no mafia please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finland highly appreciable decision of making broadband internet a legal right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]