54 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
infrastructure is more than just roads and water,
is it a quibble to focus on the phrase "Human Right" ?
Coming from an extremely rural area... the young people around here are told over and over that the only way to overcome the lack of expansive opportunities is to get an education.
Education = access to information.
Is access to information a human right?
Course China is striving to control just what information its population can receive.
Is China violating the human rights of its population through government censorship?
Total coverage is one reason that
there was considerable noise in the early 90's about piggybacking web access on to the power grid lines.
Unfortunately perhaps, the technology never really got off the ground, at least not outside a few communities. Now that would have allowed high speed access almost everywhere if it had came about. And it would have been an interesting competition in the more rural areas for the cable companies.
I'm not sure how much the technology has improved, but when cable companies around here started offering high speed access outside the cities and towns, the DSL from telephone companies were still fairly limited in how far you could live from the existing analog-to-digital switching points. Either they've extended the range or have moved the conversion points out, because it's available now in many areas now that then they said it wasn't possible. Indeed, there are a few roads around here that had telco DSL and no cable a couple of years ago when we were looking at buying a house.
But powerlines are pretty much everywhere, so that would have been interesting competition.
Now there's an idea that makes enormous sense. Shame
it didn't go anywhere.
not any more
than phone service is or any other means of communication or entertainment is.
As I recall in the US, part of the issue with going digital
with television had to do with the ability to get warning messages out via TV broadcast. You may not remember CONELRAD over radio. We had radios on almost all day when home. Today it might be TVs (but not in my house) and now it may be computers. No one gave us the receiving devices but broadcasters were required to allow interruptions for alerts and even tests of the system. Maybe in the newer age, some are gearing up for this now. It may be that all radio and TV communication is expected to cease using transmission towers and go cable or satellite. Thus, important warnings could be made available to all who had a method of receiving them.
Now, we just wait for the government questionnaire asking us to fill out our hardware requirements for a new PC. My eyesight and hearing aren't that great anymore so I'm going to need a nice big monitor and good sound system.
I don't remember the system but ...
I always wondered what the funny symbols on the tuning dial were for. Now I know.
And you are certainly right about the need for equipment to overcome vision and hearing limitations. I KNOW that I NEED a 72" 3-D capable monitor with high quality 7.1 surround sound if they expect me to be able to hear and understand their warnings. And I'm sure it won't work with less than a high end quad core processor, 8 GB RAM and a few TB of disk space. Honestly, I NEED all that equipment. It's my right, and I'm entitled. And of course there will be equipment upgrades as technology progresses. After all, my vision and hearing will probably get worse with time, especially when I start cranking up the 7.1 surround for 'testing purposes'.
72 inch monitor huh?
No, I don't think internet access is a right. As has already been said, access to telephones are not a basic human right. Of course, if you drill down through the technology ladder you see that to have internet access you need electricity, and there are plenty of communities around the world where they do not even have that.
To me basic human rights are involved with the right to life, and everything that implies.
It isn't, any more than..
electricity, roads, etc. Nice to have, but not a right. If a government wants to make it an entitlement, with the consent of the people, all well and good, but outside their purview, IMHO.
I think it can be argued that ...
article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) implies the right of access to Internet:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Better tell China?
That is not legitimate"law".
There is no such "right". It's just feelgood blather. They don't understand the concept of rights.
That's a totally new aspect.
The difference between 'law' and 'right'. I can't find the word 'law' anywhere above. So why introduce it?
What's your opinion about this particular right: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". I assume you know the source. And you being a true American, I assume you agree. Or do think it's "just feelgood blather" also?
Still, I'm sure that quite a few people (in England or so) thought it quite unlawful. Maybe there are more rights that rights that are written in laws?
I think you know what I meant...
as a legal document that Declaration has little worth. Its definition of rights is suspect at best, that's all. Using it to bolster the idea that there's a basic right to internet access is laughable.
The U.S, Bill of Rights, for instance, IS the law of the land.
"Maybe there are more rights that rights that are written in laws?"
Undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean you can make any old thing s "right". You have the right to use internet access if you can pay for it or if it's given. But making it a right implies that someone MUST supply it to you, which violates real rights.
which violates real rights.
so you have the right to bear arms ONLY if i give you a gun?
and yes, i know what you/he/they meant
You have the right to bear arms. That is absolute. You do NOT have the right to have someone to provide you with a gun.
I have a right to drive a Cadillac, IF I own or rent or otherwise have legal access to one. No one is required to provide me with a Cadillac.If GM stops making Cadillacs, you can't sue them and force them to resume making them.
The Bill of Rights is law that prohibits the government from violating basic rights you already have, because you are human.
but......but.....you said.... j/k
I think what I said...
is the opposite of what you think I said.
I think we fairly much agree.
Let me see.
1. "You have the right to use Internet access". That was the issue of the opening thread. Is Internet a basic right? Apparently: yes (this is your quote).
2. Nobody in this thread said you had the right to FREE Internet access. Neither do you: "if you can pay for it".
3. Of course the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, if I remember well) are part of the American juridical system. Nobody will disagree with that.
4. The 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like the 17xx US Declaration of Independence (which I quoted) are "just feelgood blather" (I don't know the meaning of 'blather', but I can more or less guess what you mean.
I assume you didn't read our fellow member MrKassner's recent opinion in post #5 of http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7817_102-0.html?messageID=3235940#3235940 he more or less maintains that everybody has the right to flat fee unlimited wireless Internet access to view sports and Youtube on their iPhone. "People aren't going to be on a per MB basis."
Feel free to add your opinion to that thread; it's a recent one.
I dispute this...
"Nobody in this thread said you had the right to FREE Internet access."I believe that is the premise of the thread.
You may believe so, of course.
But I don't read anything about price and terms and money and free in the thread starter (post #1 by Bill) or in the article he linked to. I might have overlooked it. Where exactly did you read it?
it's simple logic.
Anyway, even if it doesn't mention FREE, how can you have a right to something someone else has to provide? If I live in an area where broadband is not available are my rights being violated? Why isn't fiber optic a basic human right?
Next month, the United States will introduce a national program aimed at giving every American access to a fast Internet connection, raising the standard from a dial-up connection to broadband. Unlike other nations, however, the U.S. will stop short of declaring broadband access a basic human right.
If it's a basic human right, does that not mean ALL may have it, whether they pay for it or not? In other words, free? Seems obvious. Not all have the means to pay for it.
Let's see in March ...
what the national program will be. Until then it's just a guess. And your guess is just as good as mine.
My interpretation at the moment is that it's a technical target: broadband cable or ADSL or WiFi or WiMax or 3G mobile to each house that has electricity, while the current-standard is just 56Kbs dial-up.
Until the plans are released, this is a senseless discussion.
So then, if I chose to move to a cabin in the wilderness without electricity or telephone service, would I have the "right" to internet access?
See the plan to come.
Or ask Ed, because he seems to know already what's in it.
That didn't make any sense at all.
I made no such claim. Why say something so incredibly stupid?
Ed already knew that access will be free for all.
That's in his post #22: "that's obvious". Obvious to him, anyway. So I thought that maybe the answer to your question on cabins in wildernesses is obvious to him also. But from his answer I get the impression it isn't. Sometimes, I don't understand him as well as I would like. One of us must be incredibly stupid.
Why ask Ed...
Why ask Ed? You were the one who mentioned article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a possible bearing on the situation.
I asked about a cabin in the wilderness because of something you said, not Ed. You said "My interpretation at the moment is that it's a technical target: broadband cable or ADSL or WiFi or WiMax or 3G mobile to each house that has electricity, while the current-standard is just 56Kbs dial-up.". This would seem to present 2 groups of people, those people having electricity and a phone and those who don't. So, if access to high-speed is a "right", would your interpretation mean that only people with electricity and phones have that "right"?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)