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.
What rights are taken from ISPs?
Right to support their life as they see fit. ISPs don't violate anyone's rights by providing sub-1M connections, but they may be economically justified in some rural areas.
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.
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.
Providing sub-1M connection doesn't put anyone's life into danger, like selling poisoned food etc., so there's no reason to regulate it.
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.
> 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 t…
Most people don't know that 50 mbit is 6 MB/s anyways. So there should be no issue. The main gain is that higher speeds allows new services (like HDTV over the pipe) and makes content more accessible. I got a 1 gbit home connection and it's great being able to download games off Steam or Origin (which is the only services besides torrents that come close to saturating the line) in 2-3 minutes.
My parents have a 100 mbit connection and the only demanding thing they use it for is watching digital TV and sports online, and the reality is a high quality HDTV stream uses up 10-20 mbit, and if you got 3 TVs (or just a TiVo that eats 4 streams on it's own) that mandates a 50 mbit connection at least.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Providing sub-1M connection doesn't put anyone's life into danger, like selling poisoned food etc., so there's no reason to regulate it.
Most societies regulate an enormous number of things that aren't life threatening, in the hope of providing a better life for their citizens.
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.
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.
In social democracies there are always rules to doing business, and in this case the rule is about how extensive your service needs to be in comparison to your company size. And you need to keep in mind that this rule is only about the core network reach, companies are still allowed to be pretty autonomous about charging for the last 2 KM of the connection. And from what I've heard, companies like Elisa are still charging plenty for fibre digouts, even in higher density areas. And unless you want to make due with 3G, your only option is to get them to bring fibre since there's literally no real competition, most areas get divided into smaller lots between "competitors". Even if they use the same company to actually lay the fibre. And the house owners have no say in what happens to old copper lines.
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.
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.
You could use the same argument to prevent any corporate regulation - including such noncontroversial ones as anti-monopoly regulation.