That's a very bad idea. If there was to be a super cheap/free tier it also had to be rather limited in bandwidth, barely enough for e.g. remote school to remove these barriers. But if it was too good you'd essentially kill off private providers giving the government even more control over people's communication. Right now they at least need to pass laws and face backlash to force ISPs to censor stuff. If your government was your ISP they could just censor whatever they want without much oversight since there'd be little competition left to challenge them. Private companies have at least some incentive not to do so (they'll loose customers).
Free internet for all not such a bad idea
11–20 of 61 posts
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#12Well I consider internet basic infrastructure like roads or water pipes. It enables business of all kind of sorts to grow and we are well past phase where internet is some kind of "weird academical geeky thing".
Well maybe it is not basic human right, just like having access to a road is not but maybe we should have more internet infra paid with taxes.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#13That's a very bad idea. If there was to be a super cheap/free tier it also had to be rather limited in bandwidth, barely enough for e.g. remote school to remove these barriers. But if it was too good you'd essentially kill off private providers giving the government even more control over people's communication. Right now they at least need to pass laws and face backlash to force ISPs to censor stuff. If your governm…
>If your government was your ISP they could just censor whatever they want
Like they can today.
>you'd essentially kill off private providers giving the government
No one said that, the ISP can provide the bandwidth, and all the free tier contracts are paid by the government (our taxes).
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#14That's a very bad idea. If there was to be a super cheap/free tier it also had to be rather limited in bandwidth, barely enough for e.g. remote school to remove these barriers. But if it was too good you'd essentially kill off private providers giving the government even more control over people's communication. Right now they at least need to pass laws and face backlash to force ISPs to censor stuff. If your governm…
I get where you are coming from, but I think many would agree that ISPs are a natural monopoly. Censorship wise, use strict IPS rules on major IXs/cables and you are there. The Internet is not too censored only because we do not want it to be, whether it is controlled by a company or the government, things change little.
I do not understand why censorship operated by individuals and companies is so underestimated, in some respects it's even worse.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#15Well I consider internet basic infrastructure like roads or water pipes. It enables business of all kind of sorts to grow and we are well past phase where internet is some kind of "weird academical geeky thing". Well maybe it is not basic human right, just like having access to a road is not but maybe we should have more internet infra paid with taxes.
>Well I consider internet basic infrastructure like roads or water pipes.
Exactly.
>Well maybe it is not basic human right
In Switzerland you have the basic right to gain information, the discussion ATM, is a TV/Radio/Newspaper enough or does it needs a Internet-Device (important for prisons, pledging, bankruptcy etc)
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#16I think access to the Internet + an E-Mail account should be basic human rights. It's infrastructure too important to leave in the hands of private corporations. [update] I'm totally okay with this being downvoted, but I'd like the input as to why, if I'm somehow wrong, then tell me ? :)
Ah, but that's the same territory as "electricity should be a basic human right".
There's actual legal debate about this. This articles summarizes that debate. [1]
> This article considers three answers to the question whether electricity access should be a universal human right. A first position is that there is no human right to electricity but perhaps contractual rights related to various societies. A second position is that electricity is a derived human right, a right based on other rights, grounded on rights such as the right to adequate housing. A third position is that there is a universal human right to electricity. It is argued that the second position is the strongest since it supports the idea that humans often need access to electricity but avoids the stronger claim that all humans must have this access. The latter claim faces the challenge that rights language should focus on the needs of humans and not be extended too far to include everything that could be beneficial for humans. Such an extension might diminish the attention on the actual aim of human rights: That all humans should have a good enough life.
I agree with those assertions and it's why I think that neither electricity nor the internet are universal human rights.
Contrary to such universal human rights as the right to a family, liberty, recognition as a person before the law,... which should be read as first principles that ought to be applied in human interactions, rather then claims to specific commodities. [2]
That doesn't mean those things aren't important. Access to the Internet has gained in importance. Instead, human rights are a moral framework that ought to underpin the governance of that access. And that's what makes all the difference.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2019.1... [2] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#17Well I consider internet basic infrastructure like roads or water pipes. It enables business of all kind of sorts to grow and we are well past phase where internet is some kind of "weird academical geeky thing". Well maybe it is not basic human right, just like having access to a road is not but maybe we should have more internet infra paid with taxes.
> It enables business of all kind of sorts to grow
It also just enables people to communicate and access information. Kinda weird that we need to make a business pitch to show that something is essential. Then again, we're living under capitalism.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I want my e-mail stored in government servers... Yet I don't like private companies storing it... And it's too complicated to manage on my own. Damn.
Yeah, I run my own, but thing is, I don't have a RIGHT to do so, I am just lucky that my ISP most mercifully lets me bounce my outgoing mail through their SMTP server, and they blocked outgoing port 25, so that's the only way for me out. I have some right to the domain on which I host my mail, but I don't have a right to a fixed static IP, and I don't have a right to be able to make outgoing connections on port 25 (o…
Did they block port 993? Port 443? Port 80?
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#19I think access to the Internet + an E-Mail account should be basic human rights. It's infrastructure too important to leave in the hands of private corporations. [update] I'm totally okay with this being downvoted, but I'd like the input as to why, if I'm somehow wrong, then tell me ? :)
There are several problems with this idea. As you say this infrastructure is important, but it's too important to centralise it and put into government's hands. If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with
* poor service, since there will be no competition and little to no incentives to improve it
* lack of privacy, since law enforcements and random officials will absolutely want to have full access (and sure, Google has access to my emails, but I can use Protonmail instead and trust them way more not to abuse this access than I would trust "DMV for email")
* even further centralisation of power - it would be much easier to apply pressure to people doing anything "anti-government" (I believe there are already examples of this with people being cut from all-encompassing WeChat in China, but I don't have references at hand)
There is also an argument against frivolous expansion of human rights with anything not absolutely necessary or too specific.
Re: Free internet for all not such a bad idea
#20Well I consider internet basic infrastructure like roads or water pipes. It enables business of all kind of sorts to grow and we are well past phase where internet is some kind of "weird academical geeky thing". Well maybe it is not basic human right, just like having access to a road is not but maybe we should have more internet infra paid with taxes.
In Germany just because you have a TV-enabled deviced, you pay a fee to GEZ to finance public broadcasters I suppose.
I'm not sure if they will consider "free internet" as another way to access TV and charge you.