High-Speed Broadband to Be Legal Right for UK Homes and Businesses

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
The UK government has announced that British homes and businesses will have a legal right to high-speed broadband by 2020. Broadband providers will now have a legal requirement to provide high-speed broadband to anyone who requests it, no matter where they are in the country.

The digital minister, Matt Hancock, said the rollout would not mean high-speed broadband was automatically delivered to every property. “It’s about having the right to demand it. It’s an on-demand program. If you don’t go on the internet and aren’t interested, then you won’t phone up and demand this.”
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
That is actually pretty damn cool and we should do the same in the US! But I know there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth... the Republican party does NOT want a well informed rural voter base.
 

Messy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
163
i see the word "right" getting flogged again. while the sentiment is good, there are no rights that must be provided by others - if your right forces others to provide you service i'm pretty sure that's slavery or indentured servitude.

that being said, back here in the U S of A i think that high-speed low-latency across the country should be a strong priority - a priority that would be aided by breaking up some large ISP's and segmenting off infrastructure from content.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,735
i see the word "right" getting flogged again. while the sentiment is good, there are no rights that must be provided by others - if your right forces others to provide you service i'm pretty sure that's slavery or indentured servitude.

that being said, back here in the U S of A i think that high-speed low-latency across the country should be a strong priority - a priority that would be aided by breaking up some large ISP's and segmenting off infrastructure from content.

Public roads and telephone service didn't create slavery.

To answer the second part of your argument I think that cities should create their own broadband networks. After they get the ball going then the electric utilities should have a similar service. Then allow mom and pop ISP startups to rent X amount of miles of coverage to manage. Like the good old days before Comcast consolidated all providers.
 

LigTasm

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
5,163
That is actually pretty damn cool and we should do the same in the US! But I know there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth... the Republican party does NOT want a well informed rural voter base.

What does the world look like to a person who thinks that just because someone lives in a rural area they must be stupid? I can't even comprehend being this bigoted and intolerant.
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
That is actually pretty damn cool and we should do the same in the US! But I know there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth... the Republican party does NOT want a well informed rural voter base.

Yea definitely. They should just stay at home and instead of using the internet for news, get their news from the far right news channels like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC. That'll keep em voting Republican!
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
Public roads and telephone service didn't create slavery.

To answer the second part of your argument I think that cities should create their own broadband networks. After they get the ball going then the electric utilities should have a similar service. Then allow mom and pop ISP startups to rent X amount of miles of coverage to manage. Like the good old days before Comcast consolidated all providers.

The problem is that in most cities the politicians aren't getting campaign contributions from a non-existent utility like ISP. Instead, Comcast comes in and says "do you want massive campaign contributions next time you run for office? ok well give me exclusive monopoly rights to serve internet in your city and give me permits while blocking any competition from getting permits" and the politician says "wow great idea!".
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Public roads and telephone service didn't create slavery.

Slavery might not be the best word for the context, but they are without a doubt provided by compulsion. They however in the case of roads are not a right, and the companies that build roads are not forced to provide them to anyone who asks, the people however are, even if they use the roads or not by compulsion of taxes and other things.

No right exists that requires someone else to do something under compulsion. As the concept of a “right” means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men, it however does not allow the application of it. As rights can not impose positive obligations that require actions from someone else, but only negatives in abstaining from violating someones right. Just as an example of the right to private property, it is not a guarantee that someone will earn property, only that if they so do, they will own it. People hold rights not to society or from society, but against, as a barrier that society can not cross, they are in effect protections of one from others.

"Any alleged “right” of one person, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor…No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others... A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment…is…but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule... What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion."
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
And on this side of the pond A.Pai wants broadband classified as 320kbps. {face-meet-corporate-stooge}

lol what. he actually has argued the opposite:

In the two years since the initial grant awards, requirements for the second buildout's implementation have been altered from 4/1 Mbps speeds to 10/1 Mbps, however. This has raised concern as the FCC earlier this year also changed the earmark for what constitutes broadband.

"When 80 percent of Americans can access 25/3 [Mbps], that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said.

That updated definition puts both second- and first-round CAF work requirements outside the realm of the definition of broadband, which one analyst said somewhat negates the commission's initial goal to bring the broadband internet service to rural and underserved communities.

"The program funds quote-unquote 'broadband' below the levels that the FCC now deems 'broadband," said Roger Entner, founder and lead analyst at Recon Analytics. "The FCC evolved quite rapidly and then rules were left behind. So do we change the definition of broadband or treat rural Americans as second-class citizens?"

The change in definition confounded Commissioner Ajit Pai as well, who blasted the FCC's decision in a dissenting statement that called the change "incoherent." "Why are we spending over $10 billion to deploy something that isn't broadband? Don't those in rural America deserve broadband access?" he said.

https://www.fiercetelecom.com/speci...f-ii-funding-despite-fcc-s-changing-broadband

In other words, people who got CAF funds to do work at the 4/1 or 10/1 range want to still be able to do the CAF connection at that rate but Ajit Pai wants to redefine the scope of the work that was already agreed to and make ISP's give 25/3 instead. That seems much higher than 320kbps.
 

SDplus

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
140
Technically this is already true in any country and anywhere. Since it does not state a top price. If you have deep enough pockets, then you will be able to "demand" a fiber connection on your location, and rather quickly. It's just that it is going to cost you a LOT. I really hope there will be som top cost limit in this legal right. Otherwise it's just empty talk.
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,098
Slavery might not be the best word for the context, but they are without a doubt provided by compulsion. They however in the case of roads are not a right, and the companies that build roads are not forced to provide them to anyone who asks, the people however are, even if they use the roads or not by compulsion of taxes and other things.

No right exists that requires someone else to do something under compulsion. As the concept of a “right” means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men, it however does not allow the application of it. As rights can not impose positive obligations that require actions from someone else, but only negatives in abstaining from violating someones right. Just as an example of the right to private property, it is not a guarantee that someone will earn property, only that if they so do, they will own it. People hold rights not to society or from society, but against, as a barrier that society can not cross, they are in effect protections of one from others.

"Any alleged “right” of one person, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor…No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others... A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment…is…but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule... What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion."

I agree with your premise, but a distinction needs to be made between a "legal right" and a "human right." Legal rights are whatever you are legally entitled to, and can change whenever the government decides to. Human rights are inherent for being a human, and should never be deprived. Broadband Internet is being defined in the UK as a "Legal right" not a human right. What you are describing is a human right, and it would be idiotic for anyone to try to suggest Internet access should be a human right (though based on some of the opinions expressed here and on other tech sites, there seems to be a lot of idiots).
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,694
What does the world look like to a person who thinks that just because someone lives in a rural area they must be stupid? I can't even comprehend being this bigoted and intolerant.
You’re reading too much into their comment. Their opinion is that republicans don’t want a well informed rural population. (Realistically I doubt any politicians want the populace informed.)

Being uninformed doesn’t make a person stupid by any means. It simply means they don’t know. Plenty of people are uninformed about computers, do you consider all of them to be stupid?

On topic, good for the UK. I wish the US could follow suit but it’s a vastly different situation here. Just thinking of the landmass and population densities of areas. It’s a far larger undertaking, but hardly impossible.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
i see the word "right" getting flogged again. while the sentiment is good, there are no rights that must be provided by others - if your right forces others to provide you service i'm pretty sure that's slavery or indentured servitude.

that being said, back here in the U S of A i think that high-speed low-latency across the country should be a strong priority - a priority that would be aided by breaking up some large ISP's and segmenting off infrastructure from content.
You say this is slavery or indentured servitude. You care to connect the dots on that? Let's say you live in the UK and exercise this new legal right to broadband access. Let's say you're out in the boonies and none of the local ISPs feel like spending money to service you. Well, the way I would interpret that is that it's then the government's responsibility to run broadband to your home, since it established the rule. It would likely hire contractors to run the line and connect you to an ISP that was willing to service you. Where does the slavery and forced servitude come in?

I see this argument in health care too, making it sound like doctors are slaves by declaring health care a right... as though them being a doctor isn't completely voluntary and they can't always just decide to not practice medicine anymore or open up a private practice instead? This argument never makes sense to me at all.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,489
That is actually pretty damn cool and we should do the same in the US! But I know there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth... the Republican party does NOT want a well informed rural voter base.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes: If by well informed, you mean sheep that follow the MSM agenda....... On topic, there is no possible way to do that in the USA, not without dumping those government sponsored monopolies and even then, the USA is one heck of a lot bigger than Britian.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,390
That is actually pretty damn cool and we should do the same in the US! But I know there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth... the Republican party does NOT want a well informed rural voter base.
You have to be informed already to be able to tell the facts from the bullshit on the internet, and that goes for all sides. But if you're looking for affirmation of your already existing biases, you're in for a treat. They got something for everybody!
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
Technically this is already true in any country and anywhere. Since it does not state a top price. If you have deep enough pockets, then you will be able to "demand" a fiber connection on your location, and rather quickly. It's just that it is going to cost you a LOT. I really hope there will be som top cost limit in this legal right. Otherwise it's just empty talk.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Its really just empty talk to grab headlines. If you want to pay for it the company will have install it. I think its just making it a fact that the company can't refuse to install it just because they don't want to.
Here in the US I know there have been problems with Comcast not installing service to houses in some new developments because they don't want to run a line from the box a few more hundred yards.
 

LigTasm

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
5,163
You’re reading too much into their comment. Their opinion is that republicans don’t want a well informed rural population. (Realistically I doubt any politicians want the populace informed.)

Being uninformed doesn’t make a person stupid by any means. It simply means they don’t know. Plenty of people are uninformed about computers, do you consider all of them to be stupid?

On topic, good for the UK. I wish the US could follow suit but it’s a vastly different situation here. Just thinking of the landmass and population densities of areas. It’s a far larger undertaking, but hardly impossible.

The fact that you can't tell my comment is satire just shows the state of the world today. Maybe I should have added "racist" in there too for good measure.
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
The fact that you can't tell my comment is satire just shows the state of the world today. Maybe I should have added "racist" in there too for good measure.
Maybe you should have put the " /s " in there. Lots of people read it for literal meaning in these forums....
 

jfreund

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,271
lol what. he actually has argued the opposite:



In other words, people who got CAF funds to do work at the 4/1 or 10/1 range want to still be able to do the CAF connection at that rate but Ajit Pai wants to redefine the scope of the work that was already agreed to and make ISP's give 25/3 instead. That seems much higher than 320kbps.

Ajit Pai is not Tom Wheeler.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. had passed legislation to fund higher speeds and rural broadband several times, and the ISPs have taken the money and run. Then they lobby for more public funding of broadband expansion.
 

zehoo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
429
"The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said only a universal service obligation (USO) would offer certainty that broadband speeds of at least 10Mbps would reach the whole of the UK by 2020"

Sounds like they'll use long range wifi to me if 10Mbps is the minimum speed required.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
i see the word "right" getting flogged again. while the sentiment is good, there are no rights that must be provided by others - if your right forces others to provide you service i'm pretty sure that's slavery or indentured servitude.

Property rights require a judiciary/police force to enforce them. What about the right to an attorney to defend against spurious criminal charges (brought by the government)? Are judges, police, and public defenders "slaves" or "indentured servants"? What about the right to liberty? Are our armed forces slaves?
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,659
That is actually pretty damn cool and we should do the same in the US! But I know there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth... the Republican party does NOT want a well informed rural voter base.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

o_O:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
Property rights require a judiciary/police force to enforce them. What about the right to an attorney to defend against spurious criminal charges (brought by the government)? Are judges, police, and public defenders "slaves" or "indentured servants"? What about the right to liberty? Are our armed forces slaves?

Those people voluntarily take those jobs. Nobody said "you are growing up to be a XXX job because the city needs more". However that IS the kind of thing that happens in communist countries.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
Those people voluntarily take those jobs. Nobody said "you are growing up to be a XXX job because the city needs more". However that IS the kind of thing that happens in communist countries.

So...you agree that those rights can be protected without resorting to slavery? Excellent!

That was easy.
 

Messy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
163
So...you agree that those rights can be protected without resorting to slavery? Excellent!

"protected" is pretty critical to that. you have human rights whether or not they are protected. you may end up dead, destitute, or imprisoned, but you have them. the mechanisms that the govt comes up with to keep ITSELF from stomping on your rights are pretty hilarious. they are also set up to protect you from people acting illegally. they don't really have to - you are still obligated to handle this yourself should you feel so inclined.

but none of what you are talking about has to do with whether or not you have rights and what the nature of a human right is.
 

PaulP

Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2016
Messages
776
You say this is slavery or indentured servitude. You care to connect the dots on that? Let's say you live in the UK and exercise this new legal right to broadband access. Let's say you're out in the boonies and none of the local ISPs feel like spending money to service you. Well, the way I would interpret that is that it's then the government's responsibility to run broadband to your home, since it established the rule. It would likely hire contractors to run the line and connect you to an ISP that was willing to service you. Where does the slavery and forced servitude come in?

I see this argument in health care too, making it sound like doctors are slaves by declaring health care a right... as though them being a doctor isn't completely voluntary and they can't always just decide to not practice medicine anymore or open up a private practice instead? This argument never makes sense to me at all.
If the government funds it through taxes, it is a form of slavery since they get their money through taxes, which are involuntary. To the extent that the government uses taxes to fund things which only directly benefit a small minority (versus the broader public), we are all enslaved somewhat. Whether you are OK with a particular expenditure of taxes or not does not change this reality.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
"protected" is pretty critical to that. you have human rights whether or not they are protected. you may end up dead, destitute, or imprisoned, but you have them. the mechanisms that the govt comes up with to keep ITSELF from stomping on your rights are pretty hilarious. they are also set up to protect you from people acting illegally. they don't really have to - you are still obligated to handle this yourself should you feel so inclined.

but none of what you are talking about has to do with whether or not you have rights and what the nature of a human right is.

"Having" a right that isn't protected seems a rather unhelpful distinction. YMMV.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
I agree with your premise, but a distinction needs to be made between a "legal right" and a "human right." Legal rights are whatever you are legally entitled to, and can change whenever the government decides to. Human rights are inherent for being a human, and should never be deprived. Broadband Internet is being defined in the UK as a "Legal right" not a human right. What you are describing is a human right, and it would be idiotic for anyone to try to suggest Internet access should be a human right (though based on some of the opinions expressed here and on other tech sites, there seems to be a lot of idiots).

No distinction needs to be made. As the results and impact are the same, you can not have a right that infers compulsion unto someone else as it still at best would be indentured servitude, to do so is as said above, "a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Messy
like this

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
In other words, people who got CAF funds to do work at the 4/1 or 10/1 range want to still be able to do the CAF connection at that rate but Ajit Pai wants to redefine the scope of the work that was already agreed to and make ISP's give 25/3 instead. That seems much higher than 320kbps.

I saw that from APai, but what I read was:
I want to make sure Verizon can go put a LTE tower up in the area that can serve 25/3, under perfect conditions and good weather with no one else on the network. Then Verizon can get CAF funds to put up the tower, and sell everyone the new Broadband with a 2G data cap, even if they are on a fringe area that can only connect at Edge if they hold their phone just right in their window sill. But I want to make sure no other provider can really do anything else, or provide any other access, because 4/1 isn't better than 0/0 unless it's Verizon.
 

Messy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
163
"Having" a right that isn't protected seems a rather unhelpful distinction. YMMV

isn't protected by others? eh. unless we are solitary, we all rely on the morals, ethics, competence, etc of those around us. all the 'having' or 'protecting' in the world isn't going to stop an asshole from running you over in his car because he had a bad day.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
'
isn't protected by others? eh. unless we are solitary, we all rely on the morals, ethics, competence, etc of those around us. all the 'having' or 'protecting' in the world isn't going to stop and asshole from running you over in his car because he had a bad day.

I'm sorry...are you arguing, or agreeing with me? I honestly can't tell.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
clarifying that your distinction on "protected" is beside the point with a little dash of highlighting your defeatism

Defeatism? You've lost me.

A claim was made that a right which which must be provided by others constitutes slavery. I provided several examples commonly held to be basic rights -- all of which require the services of others to realize -- and asked if these therefore constituted slavery.
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,694
The fact that you can't tell my comment is satire just shows the state of the world today. Maybe I should have added "racist" in there too for good measure.
Oh oh yah, I was using satire too. You just couldn’t tell because fake news.
 
Top