Finland has declared that broadband internet access is a basic fundamental human right, and the United Nations concurs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2011/11/15/the-united-nations-says-broadband-is-basic-human-right/). [Of course, that the head of one of the unions representing a group who would benefit from a huge government contract to fulfill a “basic, human right” –well, that’s a subject for another post.] One of the podcasters I listen to also agrees that it is a right, and he feels that we ought to claim it here in the United States.
Before you jump on that bandwagon, let’s look at this from a philosophical standpoint and apply it to reality. Remember my post on Theory of Rights?
We’re going to state the following:
1. the right
2. the persons or groups who have the right
3. by what virtue this right is to be had, and
4. what responsibilities are imposed on others as a result of someone having this right.
The first two are really easy, but the whole argument begins to fall apart when we set foot into number 3.
1. The RIGHT that is being claimed is access to broadband internet. Right from the outset, we have further clarification needed. Some definitions of broadband include everything faster than landline-based dial-up 54kbps internet service. That would include satellite based service, which I have, and which measures somewhat faster than dial-up but significantly less than DSL. My download speed on a perfectly clear day is still measured in kbps. Pretty sad. Other definitions do not include satellite. Finland’s floor is 1MBPS down.
2. Who has that right? Would that be every CITIZEN of the United States, every LEGAL RESIDENT of the United States, or every person everywhere in all the whole wide world? If this is going to be considered to be a fundamental human right, then we would have to conclude the whole wide world.
3. By what virtue would anyone have this right? The arguments I have heard go something along the lines of the necessity of doing business at the speed of light. But not everyone has a need to conduct commerce over the internet. Do individuals who do not conduct commercial business from their homes still have that right, and if so , why? Individuals can access bank accounts and online vendors using landline-based dial-up service. If blazing fast internet speeds are necessary to create a competitive advantage in the marketplace, that is not equal to a right. Access to information is not limited to the internet, and is certainly not limited to the internet from one’s home at this time. Furthermore, to establish a right to information access via the internet, we would first need to establish a right to the information itself.
4. The last question is where the whole concept loses all validity. What responsibilities does this impose on others? Let’s just assume that we acknowledge “internet access” as a broad term to be a right. Now we have to determine what that means to other people. If I am making the claim and we acknowledge that I have a right to broadband internet access, does that mean that it becomes incumbent upon some entity to provide that access, to provide the infrastructure to make it possible for me to avail myself of the World Wide Web? And if so, to what extent? Must that entity provide hardware and software, or just the hardware, leaving me to procure the service? Or is it perhaps just the service, leaving me to procure the hardware? Let’s assume a lesser claim, that perhaps “a right to broadband access” means merely that I have a right not to be impeded in my access, that nobody has a right to stop me. The only claim that places on others is that they stay out of my way.
So here’s my take on it: I hate my internet service. I don’t hate internet service in general, but having had plenty of access to wonderful web traffic speed, my satellite internet cruises like an injured snail with hurt feelings and a bad attitude. However, no, I do NOT have a right to someone else’s goods and service. I have a right to make an offer in the marketplace and someone else has a right to accept or refuse it. All others have a right to make an offer in the marketplace and I have a right to accept or refuse it. Having a desire to do business at a more rapid pace from my home does not constitute a need, and even if it did, it still would not constitute a right. I sure don’t blame any internet service provider for not making a rush to lay copper, let alone fiber, out in our area. It is certainly more cost-effective when a mile of line can service 100 homes than when that same mile of line can service 10 homes. But the service providers know that in order to recover the cost of laying that line, the prices they would need to charge would keep their intended customers out of the market. There are no life-saving services that the internet offers at this time that cannot be obtained more effectively some other way. With all due respect to the podcaster, doing business at even reasonable speed still does not constitute a “right.” “Need” doesn’t do it, either.
I’m not trying to understate the issue or downplay the advantages of faster internet. I ‘m just trying to keep the conversation honest and reasonable.