Internet access is 'a fundamental right'

[RuleBritannia]

Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.

The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide.

Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens.

International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access.

"The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News.

"The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created."

He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure - just like roads, waste and water".

"We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate."



The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net.

Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed.

In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some government regulation of the internet.

Rural retreat

The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill.

As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law.

This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws.

Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens".

In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net access.

The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is reluctant to go.

Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to deal with as citizens demand access to the net.

The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people".

More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net.

Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - whether they currently had access or not.

Free speech

Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea of net access as a right, the survey found.

More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other European Country.

South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access.

The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations.

In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they could not cope without it.

Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater freedom.

However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were the most concerning aspects for those questioned.

A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8548190.stm

[Azathoth]

Damn straight. On demand porn is essential for life

[Ameri Boi]

So...13% of respondents are content if they lost access? (<--- I swear I love that)

[Coito ergo sum]

Most people seem to think that "fundamental right" means "something you really really really want - real bad."

If internet access is a "fundamental right" then what is sex? A right? Do we have a "fundamental right" to have sex? If so, should the government provide us with people to fuck? If a man is impotent, or a woman frigid, do they have a "fundamental right" to have government provided viagra and other such things so they can exercise their fundamental rights?

The internet is something that people who want it should have, and they should get what they pay for. It's not a right.

[Martok]

Basic internet service should be available to everyone. 1.5 Mbps seems like a good enough speed for basic service.

[AshtonBlack]

I think basic education for 100% as a RIGHT would be a better spend. FFS

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was involved in a project at Purdue to send computers to central African countries. Each year a new set of computers would be sent to the A sites and the old ones would go to the B sites. The next years the A sites got new computers and the B sites got the A sites' old computers. The B site computers went to C sites. Each new site got a satellite dish for computer access and a pedal powered generator where appropriate.

[Coito ergo sum]

How about we start by defining the terms "right" and "fundamental right?"

It often seems to me that people use the word "right" to mean whatever they think is really important. Like "education." Is it a right - or is it just omething that is really important and a good use of national resources?

Services and other things like "internet access" pose some precarious issues, IMHO, if they are to be characterized as a right. For example, what standard of "internet access" is a right? Dial-up? Slow broadband? High Speed? The Highest Speed? Why not the highest speed? Why only the lowest or the medium?

Does the right of internet access include the right to have equal internet access to everyone else? Why should one person be allowed to get better internet access only because he can afford to pay more for it?

And, if we reduce the right to internet access to "reasonable" internet access and what is "reasonable" is to be determined by the People through their elected representatives, then aren't we really calling it a "right" when it isn't? Isn't it just something the legislature chooses to provide when it reasonably can, and chooses to not provide when it reasonably can't? Where then is the "Right" to internet access, if that's the case?

So, what is your definition of "right" and/or "fundamental right?"

[maiforpeace]

Maybe they should start with - electricity is a fundamental right, and computers are a fundamental right?

That "fundamental right" they speak of only extends to people who can afford to own, or have access to computers.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think people have a fundamental right to toothpaste and toothbrushes, and free oil changes at the Jiffy Lube.

[maiforpeace]

I think people have a fundamental right to toothpaste and toothbrushes, and free oil changes at the Jiffy Lube.

I don't have a car! (just kidding)

Those boobs of yours seem to have undergone some surgery. They are bigger, but equally as mesmerizing.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think people have a fundamental right to toothpaste and toothbrushes, and free oil changes at the Jiffy Lube.

I don't have a car! (just kidding)

Those boobs of yours seem to have undergone some surgery. They are bigger, but equally as mesmerizing.

Yes, they are quite hypnotic.

[Dr. Kwaltz]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

I'm fine with that, the rest of the world is then just steaming ahead without considering what the kooks in the US are doing. From Internet's perspective, USA will then be considered a bug and traffic will route around USA, so will knowledge. How? Simply by developing services which can not be used in the US due to lack of Internet infrastructure and as such, will leave the US behind.

You can scream bloody murder all you want from your ideological cave but the world couldn't care less what you cavemen says in regards to your antiquated ideas of what constitutes a fundamental right.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Why do you think that, please?

[Cunt]

Most people seem to think that "fundamental right" means "something you really really really want - real bad."

I do agree that the idea is ill-defined in many (maybe even my) minds.

If internet access is a "fundamental right" then what is sex?

As I understand your question, it is the slippery friction of mucous membranes.

A right? Do we have a "fundamental right" to have sex?

I say we do, even if only with ourselves.

If so, should the government provide us with people to fuck?

Since you (and I!) can go fuck ourselves, this isn't necessary.

If a man is impotent, or a woman frigid, do they have a "fundamental right" to have government provided viagra and other such things so they can exercise their fundamental rights?

I think fundamental rights can't trod upon others, but that is just my opinion.

The internet is something that people who want it should have, and they should get what they pay for. It's not a right.

Is education a right? Is in anyone's right to have education based on facts? Or is it good enough that someone hands them a 'Creation Science' text?

I think it will be tough, but worthwhile. Much of what I have learned from the interwebz would not have come to me any other way. I mean, I wouldn't have bumped into Calilasseia socially, nor would I likely have heard what he had to offer on one or two subjects.