>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?
>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.
Access to food and water are can be recognized as rights in the same way we recognize the right to free speech as a right, i.e. that you may not be prevented from pursuing the object of that right by law or policy.
The right to food means that you may not be artificially constrained from growing and producing food for yourself by your own means. It doesn't mean that anyone's obligated to give you free food; the UN's concept of rights, as implied by the linked Wikipedia article, is simply wrong. How can you have a right that can only be invoked by the action of third parties?
Having a right and possessing the object of that right are two entirely different things.
It is becoming more and more necessary over time. Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable.
Questions of "rights" devolve into discussions of fairness with each person asserting that their sense of justice is the one that society ought to satisfy. It makes more sense to examine an issue like this from a perspective of utility: the internet is incredibly useful for education and communication, both of which benefit society.
> It is becoming more and more necessary over time. Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable.
It's entirely worthwhile to pursue goals like maximizing the availability of internet access for as many people is feasible and practicable. But putting this pursuit on the same level as fundamental rights - which inhere in every individual irrespective of any external infrastructure or institutions - does indeed dilute the concept of rights.
Which illustrates how much easier things get when one focuses on the pragmatics of the situation. One can then focus on whatever areas are under-served and how best to deal with that.
Which will still be there for those who need them. And remember that Finland is geographically quite large country with a lot of small towns and villages[1]. Not everyone is close to a library. Not to mention that the weather in winter will definitely discourage people, especially the elder, from walking to one.
[1]: Here's a list of the 20 largest municipalities: http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html#suurimmat. The smallest of those has population of 48 907. About half of Finland's population is spread around municipalities smaller than that.
Where you often struggle to get enough time to do anything - even if you're willing to trust the machines to not be compromised.
There's a fantastic article from a librarian on the topic of helping people to use library computers and the problems users have, although a quick hunt doesn't seem to turn it up - anyone?
Might be a perfectly good idea to help citizens get access to better internet. However, I don't see why that should make it a right.
A right to me is a powerful thing. It is something that the government or others cannot take from you, no matter what. Eg, free speech - no person or government can compel you to not express your opinion. Or, freedom of religion - no person or government can compel to believe in a certain deity.
Consider this, things are relatively good in the western world right now in a grand historic sense. So governments have the ability to bestow "rights" like access to broadband. But what if things get really bad financially and the government and telcos of the nation can no longer afford to maintain broadband access to all citizens? Suddenly the government is forced to revoke a right because it is broke. I contend that if that can happen, it probably wasn't a right in the first place. Now, free speech on the other hand is something that will never have to be revoked no matter the financial status of a nation. That to me is truly a right. It is the difference between promising a person a printing press and promising a person that he may print whatever he wants on his own printing press.
>The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.
Well, it should. Either that, or access to one.
Because else, people have the right to free speech, but no way to be heard, whereas a tiny minority controls the media, and their's is the only speech that matters.
Giving actual resources and physical dimensions to a right doesn't cheapen it, it makes it more concrete.
What some people don't understand is that the "right to free speech" wasn't about idly talking in your house, it was about the right to make political statements on the issues of the day AND be heard by your community. That was far easier when the concept was established of course, where communities and cities were far smaller and knit together.
Free speech between friends or in your house is BS, even the worst dictatorships had that.
The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.