Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right (2009)(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right (2009)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html
72 comments
> 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 the other end not being able to saturate your 100Mbit pipe anyway!
Governments promise these "minimum" speeds or "universal access" as an attempt to appear in touch with technology.
For context, the Government here in Australia has started rolling out a national fibre network (National Broadband Network; NBN), with tiered port speeds of 12/25/50/100Mbps. It's going to be a shock to many (and ISP's are going to bear the brunt of the complaints) when people realise their 50Mbit connection isn't going to give them 5-6MB/s throughput from any/every source.
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 the other end not being able to saturate your 100Mbit pipe anyway!
Governments promise these "minimum" speeds or "universal access" as an attempt to appear in touch with technology.
For context, the Government here in Australia has started rolling out a national fibre network (National Broadband Network; NBN), with tiered port speeds of 12/25/50/100Mbps. It's going to be a shock to many (and ISP's are going to bear the brunt of the complaints) when people realise their 50Mbit connection isn't going to give them 5-6MB/s throughput from any/every source.
I've had 50Mb/s for a few years now (UK). It doesn't protect your from network screw-ups, packet-loss or high latency, but it can still be really nice to have.
It opens up the possibility of 'What shall we watch tonight? Oh we don't have that yet? I'll just grab it now. Should be done in ten minutes.' Most digital distribution services seem able to handle uploading that fast these days.
So the main uses are downloading of videos and computer games. Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient.
It opens up the possibility of 'What shall we watch tonight? Oh we don't have that yet? I'll just grab it now. Should be done in ten minutes.' Most digital distribution services seem able to handle uploading that fast these days.
So the main uses are downloading of videos and computer games. Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient.
>Not life-changing, probably not worth calling a human right at this point, but pretty convenient. //
The _availability_ of some level of access though does appear to be worth making universal (within the UK). Access to government services is increasingly being focussed through the WWW. This can have the effect of leaving behind those without a reasonable level of internet access available; making services for that sector of society more difficult to reach (a Trademark search say, or a check of the statute databases or ordering a book from the library or checking up on the MP or ...).
If such a disparity of available services can be readily avoided then it seems that it should be.
The _availability_ of some level of access though does appear to be worth making universal (within the UK). Access to government services is increasingly being focussed through the WWW. This can have the effect of leaving behind those without a reasonable level of internet access available; making services for that sector of society more difficult to reach (a Trademark search say, or a check of the statute databases or ordering a book from the library or checking up on the MP or ...).
If such a disparity of available services can be readily avoided then it seems that it should be.
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.
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.
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 the loser in a prisoner's dilemma. However, what really bugs me is when third parties (e.g. the Finish government) perpetuate the inferior standard, which arose as a marketing ploy, for no apparent reason other than maybe ignorance. It's bad enough that we still don't really use the metric system outside of science in the United States, and it's cost us a fair amount of money in incorrect conversions. However, with MBps and Mbps, most laypeople and possibly some Finish government officials don't even realize that there are two systems, one of which is almost an order of magnitude larger.
Measuring transmission speeds in bits is a well-established tradition, e.g., modem speeds have always been reported in "baud" (bits per second). On the contrary, it could be claimed that bytes are an arbitrary unit (despite being a ubiquitous convention), whereas a bit is the fundamental unit of information. That said, it would be more convenient if all speeds were reported in megabytes, and aside from throughput, latency and packet loss should arguably be advertised as well.
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.
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.
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.
The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press.
Have you read the article?
>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second."
That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people.
What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept?
From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)
>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second."
That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people.
What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept?
From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)
>Have you read the article?
>>the Finnish government said that no household "would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second."
>That doesn't say anything on who's going to pay, probably the people.
That's why I said access to a consumer good and nothing about who pays. That said, as far as I can tell, there isn't a western democracy that forbids their people from buying internet access. So if this doesn't have anything to do with assisting people to pay for it and they aren't banned from buying it themselves, what does it do?
In reality this does have to do with assisting them to pay for it, because mandating construction of broadband connections is just a roundabout way of helping pay for it.
>What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? >From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)
This is exactly what I mean. You are comparing getting internet access to getting food and water. If you don't have food and water, you die. If you don't have internet access, then yes you don't have access to the best, most modern way to communicate. However, in a nation with free speech you have access to many other ways to express yourself. I'm sure resourceful people will find ways to exercise that right without mandating some telco run fiber to within 2km of their house.
That's why I said access to a consumer good and nothing about who pays. That said, as far as I can tell, there isn't a western democracy that forbids their people from buying internet access. So if this doesn't have anything to do with assisting people to pay for it and they aren't banned from buying it themselves, what does it do?
In reality this does have to do with assisting them to pay for it, because mandating construction of broadband connections is just a roundabout way of helping pay for it.
>What do you mean by "cheapens the concept"? I don't understand this formulation. What concept? >From my point of view, water and food could be called consumer goods. Access to food is already a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) while it's not yet settled 100% that water is a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water)
This is exactly what I mean. You are comparing getting internet access to getting food and water. If you don't have food and water, you die. If you don't have internet access, then yes you don't have access to the best, most modern way to communicate. However, in a nation with free speech you have access to many other ways to express yourself. I'm sure resourceful people will find ways to exercise that right without mandating some telco run fiber to within 2km of their house.
Access to food and water are can be recognized as rights in the same way we recognize the right to free speech as a right, i.e. that you may not be prevented from pursuing the object of that right by law or policy.
The right to food means that you may not be artificially constrained from growing and producing food for yourself by your own means. It doesn't mean that anyone's obligated to give you free food; the UN's concept of rights, as implied by the linked Wikipedia article, is simply wrong. How can you have a right that can only be invoked by the action of third parties?
Having a right and possessing the object of that right are two entirely different things.
The right to food means that you may not be artificially constrained from growing and producing food for yourself by your own means. It doesn't mean that anyone's obligated to give you free food; the UN's concept of rights, as implied by the linked Wikipedia article, is simply wrong. How can you have a right that can only be invoked by the action of third parties?
Having a right and possessing the object of that right are two entirely different things.
It is becoming more and more necessary over time. Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable.
Questions of "rights" devolve into discussions of fairness with each person asserting that their sense of justice is the one that society ought to satisfy. It makes more sense to examine an issue like this from a perspective of utility: the internet is incredibly useful for education and communication, both of which benefit society.
Questions of "rights" devolve into discussions of fairness with each person asserting that their sense of justice is the one that society ought to satisfy. It makes more sense to examine an issue like this from a perspective of utility: the internet is incredibly useful for education and communication, both of which benefit society.
> It is becoming more and more necessary over time. Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable.
It's entirely worthwhile to pursue goals like maximizing the availability of internet access for as many people is feasible and practicable. But putting this pursuit on the same level as fundamental rights - which inhere in every individual irrespective of any external infrastructure or institutions - does indeed dilute the concept of rights.
It's entirely worthwhile to pursue goals like maximizing the availability of internet access for as many people is feasible and practicable. But putting this pursuit on the same level as fundamental rights - which inhere in every individual irrespective of any external infrastructure or institutions - does indeed dilute the concept of rights.
"Addressing it as a common need and making sure that everyone can accesses it is not inherently unreasonable."
There are public libraries in nearly every city with free Internet access.
There are public libraries in nearly every city with free Internet access.
Which illustrates how much easier things get when one focuses on the pragmatics of the situation. One can then focus on whatever areas are under-served and how best to deal with that.
Which will still be there for those who need them. And remember that Finland is geographically quite large country with a lot of small towns and villages[1]. Not everyone is close to a library. Not to mention that the weather in winter will definitely discourage people, especially the elder, from walking to one.
[1]: Here's a list of the 20 largest municipalities: http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html#suurimmat. The smallest of those has population of 48 907. About half of Finland's population is spread around municipalities smaller than that.
[1]: Here's a list of the 20 largest municipalities: http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html#suurimmat. The smallest of those has population of 48 907. About half of Finland's population is spread around municipalities smaller than that.
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?
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?
Thanks, this is exactly what I was thinking of. Anyone care to explain the downvote this had received?
Free Internet Access with privacy?
"The right to free speech doesn't promise every citizen a printing press."
So why can't that change if it's easy and cheap enough to do it for every citizen, seeing how it's so important for a person's freedom of speech?
So why can't that change if it's easy and cheap enough to do it for every citizen, seeing how it's so important for a person's freedom of speech?
Might be a perfectly good idea to help citizens get access to better internet. However, I don't see why that should make it a right.
A right to me is a powerful thing. It is something that the government or others cannot take from you, no matter what. Eg, free speech - no person or government can compel you to not express your opinion. Or, freedom of religion - no person or government can compel to believe in a certain deity.
Consider this, things are relatively good in the western world right now in a grand historic sense. So governments have the ability to bestow "rights" like access to broadband. But what if things get really bad financially and the government and telcos of the nation can no longer afford to maintain broadband access to all citizens? Suddenly the government is forced to revoke a right because it is broke. I contend that if that can happen, it probably wasn't a right in the first place. Now, free speech on the other hand is something that will never have to be revoked no matter the financial status of a nation. That to me is truly a right. It is the difference between promising a person a printing press and promising a person that he may print whatever he wants on his own printing press.
A right to me is a powerful thing. It is something that the government or others cannot take from you, no matter what. Eg, free speech - no person or government can compel you to not express your opinion. Or, freedom of religion - no person or government can compel to believe in a certain deity.
Consider this, things are relatively good in the western world right now in a grand historic sense. So governments have the ability to bestow "rights" like access to broadband. But what if things get really bad financially and the government and telcos of the nation can no longer afford to maintain broadband access to all citizens? Suddenly the government is forced to revoke a right because it is broke. I contend that if that can happen, it probably wasn't a right in the first place. Now, free speech on the other hand is something that will never have to be revoked no matter the financial status of a nation. That to me is truly a right. It is the difference between promising a person a printing press and promising a person that he may print whatever he wants on his own printing press.
[deleted]
>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.
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.
This cannot be implemented without violating property rights, so it's morally wrong. The state should protect people's rights, not take them away.
Maybe the Finns have a different idea of what makes a good society than you?
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.
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.
> In social democracies there are always rules to doing business
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).
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).
You could use the same argument to prevent any corporate regulation - including such noncontroversial ones as anti-monopoly regulation.
First, anti-monopoly regulation is not noncontroversial. Second, why do you think corporations are something other than a mode of cooperation of real people? When you are a customer - you cooperate with other people by exchange of money for the service. When you are a capitalist, you cooperate with others by paying them for the services upfront before the product is sold. When you are employee, you cooperate by renting your labor for money. And so on. Why do some people think they are entitled to intervene in the other persons' cooperation?
Anti-monopoly regulation is pretty noncontroversial. Libertarianism is, despite its popularity in places like HN, quite a fringe movement.
Do you think that the consequences of two entities cooperation is limited to those two entities?
Further, and I'm sure you'll vehemently disagree with me, I don't think people or corporations are islands. I don't resent owing society some cooperation, and I have no problem with corporations being in the same boat - more so, in fact, because as concentrators of power such regulation becomes more necessary.
Do you think that the consequences of two entities cooperation is limited to those two entities?
Further, and I'm sure you'll vehemently disagree with me, I don't think people or corporations are islands. I don't resent owing society some cooperation, and I have no problem with corporations being in the same boat - more so, in fact, because as concentrators of power such regulation becomes more necessary.
You're clearly arguing with a libertarian. There's no point continuing.
Why there's no point continuing?
I don't wish to start an argument, but most libertarians define their reality in their own head. Their arguments often don't translate into real world scenarios but trying to convince them of this is practically impossible.
My experience of arguing with libertarians is that they are often desperate to view a complex world in an impractically black and white manner. I wouldn't say there's no point arguing, but I can certainly understand why people would find it frustrating.
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.
Since when is a corporation an individual?
Society defines the rights that corporations have. It's in its very nature to be able to take away rights.
I don't particularly have any opinion on the article in question, but I don't view property rights as always being important over all else.
Society defines the rights that corporations have. It's in its very nature to be able to take away rights.
I don't particularly have any opinion on the article in question, but I don't view property rights as always being important over all else.
Owners of a corporation define the way their assets are allocated and used. Just like you define how you use the contents of your wallet and bank account. There's nothing ethically special in the business operation from your allocation of personal labor, capital and time.
Apart from that, there is no such thing as "society entity". Society is only a group of acting individuals.
Apart from that, there is no such thing as "society entity". Society is only a group of acting individuals.
So then, can you give an example of a regulation that you don't think is morally wrong?
Original article is three years old. Here's two more on the subject, both less than month old.
The first one also provides info about the scope of the plan and its implementation (like "Private Roads Act, Highways Act and Rail Tracks Act will be adjusted, so that cables can be placed within the infrastructure in the most economic manner possible overall").
"The Government is to keep the hundred megabit objective to be achieved by 2015, which was set during the election period. By 2015, high-speed 100 Mbit/s broadband connections will be available at no more than two kilometres from all permanent places of residence."
http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122
In this news item, the Finnish Minister of Communications suggests that 10Mb would become the new minimum standard before end of election term in 2015.
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+...
"The Government is to keep the hundred megabit objective to be achieved by 2015, which was set during the election period. By 2015, high-speed 100 Mbit/s broadband connections will be available at no more than two kilometres from all permanent places of residence."
http://www.lvm.fi/web/en/pressreleases/-/view/4109122
In this news item, the Finnish Minister of Communications suggests that 10Mb would become the new minimum standard before end of election term in 2015.
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Legally+mandated+broadband+...
Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in roughly the same sq mile area.
Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.
Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.
Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper . . .
It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.
He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).
No.
If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head.
But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head.
But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.
But it's not.
Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout.
You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas.
So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor.
The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.
Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout.
You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas.
So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor.
The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.
The above is an invalid comparison. A better, more objective measure is linear population density.
Miles of roads in Texas: 152,054 miles Miles of roads in Finland: 65,617 miles ()
Population of Texas: 25,674,681 Population of Finland: 5,375,276
Linear population density of Texas: ~169 persons per miles of road Linear population density of Finland: ~82 persons per miles of road
Ergo, it is cheaper per head to provide wireline telecommunications services in Texas than in Finland, when building out to the whole population, as the linear population density is higher in Texas and most, if not all, permanent residences and business are accessible by road.
Sources: http://www.aaroads.com/texas/ http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
() This road mileage does not include private roads in Finland. Including these roads would further lower the linear population density of Finland, but these roads were excluded from the calculation as the majority of the private roads are access roads to non-permanent recidency second homes and timer or agriculture roads.
Miles of roads in Texas: 152,054 miles Miles of roads in Finland: 65,617 miles ()
Population of Texas: 25,674,681 Population of Finland: 5,375,276
Linear population density of Texas: ~169 persons per miles of road Linear population density of Finland: ~82 persons per miles of road
Ergo, it is cheaper per head to provide wireline telecommunications services in Texas than in Finland, when building out to the whole population, as the linear population density is higher in Texas and most, if not all, permanent residences and business are accessible by road.
Sources: http://www.aaroads.com/texas/ http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
() This road mileage does not include private roads in Finland. Including these roads would further lower the linear population density of Finland, but these roads were excluded from the calculation as the majority of the private roads are access roads to non-permanent recidency second homes and timer or agriculture roads.
This really isn't a good measure since roads will be denser in urban areas and less dense in rural areas, thus leading to exactly the same issues as directly using population density.
But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm
But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm
> This really isn't a good measure since roads will be denser
in urban areas and less dense in rural areas, thus leading to exactly the same issues as directly using population density.
Please be so good as explaining you point better, I do not understand it. If you are going to wire up every lot in the state, you will have to traverse all roads in the state to do a cable drop to every lot in order to do so. What does road density have to do with it?
When building wireline communication networks, the deciding factor costwise, is the number of linear cable sheet miles. As such miles of road is a good proxy for comparing deployment costs between locations.
Please note that I am discussing wireline broadband. If you have you heart set on wireless coverage, then we have to talk different measures, and even there population density is not the tell all metric.
> But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm
My bad. However that does not still make it cheaper to build in Finland, it merely brings up Texas and Finland to par on miles of road per population. Several things still favour Texas in the cost per capita, such as: economics of scale, ability to perform construction year around and no need to put utilities under the frostline.
There are no technical or cost reasons for Texas to be unable to offer the same level of broadband service as Finland. It all comes down to other reasons, perhaps such as lack of political will in Texas.
Please be so good as explaining you point better, I do not understand it. If you are going to wire up every lot in the state, you will have to traverse all roads in the state to do a cable drop to every lot in order to do so. What does road density have to do with it?
When building wireline communication networks, the deciding factor costwise, is the number of linear cable sheet miles. As such miles of road is a good proxy for comparing deployment costs between locations.
Please note that I am discussing wireline broadband. If you have you heart set on wireless coverage, then we have to talk different measures, and even there population density is not the tell all metric.
> But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm
My bad. However that does not still make it cheaper to build in Finland, it merely brings up Texas and Finland to par on miles of road per population. Several things still favour Texas in the cost per capita, such as: economics of scale, ability to perform construction year around and no need to put utilities under the frostline.
There are no technical or cost reasons for Texas to be unable to offer the same level of broadband service as Finland. It all comes down to other reasons, perhaps such as lack of political will in Texas.
A number of different factors at play.
Imagine a layout where cables do not have to follow roads.
Imagine a layout where one cable can serve buildings on two roads. Certainly much, much easier when the buildings are dense.
Imagine a thousand people living in one building in the center of a thousand square miles, served by one cable. Imagine a thousand people living one per square mile in a thousand square miles. The population densities are the same. The cabling costs are not.
Imagine a layout where cables do not have to follow roads.
Imagine a layout where one cable can serve buildings on two roads. Certainly much, much easier when the buildings are dense.
Imagine a thousand people living in one building in the center of a thousand square miles, served by one cable. Imagine a thousand people living one per square mile in a thousand square miles. The population densities are the same. The cabling costs are not.
Imagination will take you very far, and in this case, very far from the matter at hand. Texas and Finland are real places, not figments of imagination.
> Imagine a layout where cables do not have to follow roads. Imagine a layout where one cable can serve buildings on two roads. Certainly much, much easier when the buildings are dense.
Not very likely in the real world. Easements and rights of way are not available or not readily available among arbitrary paths. In any case, even if you were to cut through peoples back yards, you would still most of the time just be following a parallellish path to the roads.
> Imagine a thousand people living in one building in the center of a thousand square miles, served by one cable. Imagine a thousand people living one per square mile in a thousand square miles. The population densities are the same. The cabling costs are not.
These are real places we are talking about. Have a look at a map.
> Imagine a layout where cables do not have to follow roads. Imagine a layout where one cable can serve buildings on two roads. Certainly much, much easier when the buildings are dense.
Not very likely in the real world. Easements and rights of way are not available or not readily available among arbitrary paths. In any case, even if you were to cut through peoples back yards, you would still most of the time just be following a parallellish path to the roads.
> Imagine a thousand people living in one building in the center of a thousand square miles, served by one cable. Imagine a thousand people living one per square mile in a thousand square miles. The population densities are the same. The cabling costs are not.
These are real places we are talking about. Have a look at a map.
A very important point is that while Finland has an area of 330K km^2, almost all of the population is concentrated on the coasts and a few in-land cities. You can probably get 95% penetration with less than 30K km^2 coverage. The rest will likely be served with wireless broadband.
I think defining broadband access like this allows them to move certain legally required things to the internet age. I believe there are a lot of small laws in Finland that say what the radio channel, newspaper or Tv channel should provide. For example we actually have a law that during icehockey World Championships our own matches should be broadcasted for free.
If enough people legally have access to a broadband internet, its easier to make laws to offering certain services through the internet (certain information delivery, services like taxes and maybe voting in the future).
If enough people legally have access to a broadband internet, its easier to make laws to offering certain services through the internet (certain information delivery, services like taxes and maybe voting in the future).
I think most people read too much into the speeds. What they are acutally saying is that you now have a legal right to get a decent-ish connection at any place in Finland. And this should be a right in any modern country, as so many things revolve around having access to the Internet.
Example: In Norway we do our tax returns, apply for school, read up on information about your properties, etc. You basically have to have access to Internet.
Example: In Norway we do our tax returns, apply for school, read up on information about your properties, etc. You basically have to have access to Internet.
I still remember the fiasco of spending lots of tax money to build a DVB television network. They were talking a lot of having a "callback channel" in those set-top boxes and lots of interaction in TV programs.
Well, we had expensive television network while Sweden spent the same money for better Internet connections.
Well, we had expensive television network while Sweden spent the same money for better Internet connections.
Meanwhile, in my country, regular people can't have anything better than 128kb (it's the law).
fyi, article is 3 years old
The voice of the people will be heard.
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.