51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most societies regulate an enormous number of things that aren't life threatening, in the hope of providing a better life for their citizens.
Yeah, better life for some group of people in exchange for worse life for others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
http://www.metafilter.com/112698/California-Dreamin#4183210
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cha…
It's all true but you're missing the point. Parents to my post seem to have been implying that no one's rights are being restricted because ISPs should not have any rights.
But that's not the whole picture. You're restricting rights of real, physical, natural born people to freely dispose of their property. It's not just property, it's real human autonomy.
It's no different from digging a trench through your backyard. We may agree (or not, libertarians often don't) that your neighbour's right to have running water trumps your right to undisturbed backyard but it's your rights that are being restricted, not your backyard's rights (it probably doesn't have any).
Meanwhile, in my country, regular people can't have anything better than 128kb (it's the law).
what? where is that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 1 Mb not 1 MB.
While it bugs me, I understand that from an ISP's point of view, it makes sense to use whatever plausible-ish unit will let you post the highest number, even if that unit is way less practical for thinking in (any download large enough to be affected by connection speed is going to be thought of by the person downloading in terms of bytes, not bits). Also, if an ISP doesn't do that, everyone else will, and they'll be…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
No not really. Streaming videos down, or streaming videos up (i.e. video chat) is harder at low speeds like that. With 250kb/sec you can consume textual content easier.