Do you have a “right” to access the Internet?
A couple months I wrote about our government’s plan to spend more than $7 billion - part of the big economic stimulus package - promoting Internet access in rural and underserved areas.
The basic idea is this: People living on farms, in poor inner city areas and sparsely-populated subdivisions need to have access to high speed Internet. Without it, they’ll fall behind the rest of us.
Of course $7 billion sounds like a lot of money. But some experts say that’s just tiny piece of what it’s going to cost to get everyone in this country up to speed, so to speak.
I know some people think this is a waste of money. That there are better things to spend our scarce dollars on.
But have we reached the point where Internet access has gone from luxury to necessity to fundamental right?
The French seem to think so, according this article at ReadWriteWeb. In striking down a French law, the country’s highest court essentially ruled that citizens have the right to access the Internet. The article questions the implications of other countries adopting a similar position. And what it could mean for people who simply don’t have Internet access.
Conversely, are peoples’ fundamental human rights being violated when they don’t have access to the internet? It’s tempting to consider internet access a luxury, but consider the increased quality of life that comes with the huge jump in access to cultural and logistical information the internet brings. We think this is an important opportunity to think about expanding our understanding of human rights.
So which is it? Luxury? Necessity? Fundamental right?
Tim has covered a wide range of topics, including tourism, crime, aviation and gambling, since becoming a reporter in 1990. The Oklahoma native joined the Post-Dispatch in 2007 after spending nine years in Orlando. In his spare time, he's often exploring one virtual world or another. He can be reached at tbarker@post-dispatch.com. 
Crashtest has a good idea by tying it in with electrical cooperatives. And that the key is to build the infrastructure, not give away the service for free.
That said, if it is a “fundamental right” does that mean that prisoners have this right. I work in an institution with many forensic clients. They are retricted in that their mail is inspected–in and out of the facility. They are subject to searches. Only a few have internet privileges and even those come with a TON of restrictions. Will we eventually see suits where prisoners are demanding full-on internet access because it is a “fundamental right”.
Well, some of those sentences should have ended with a question mark. Oh brother…
Despite some of the claims to the contrary, young people do not need the internet to “keep up” anymore than they needed cell phones 10 years ago to “keep up”.
Supply and demand clearly show that setting up these systems is cost-prohibitive. Even if you want to claim that it is an “investment” in the future, that future still has to be maintained, upgraded, and replaced down the road. Which, again, would be cost prohibitive given the amount of revenue that would be generated in these isolated areas. ANY business is keenly interested in expanding it’s market share. If internet providers are not expanding their hardware into these backwater areas despite that desire, do you really think it’s a good idea? Sorry if I prefer the businessmen to some government dude when it comes to business decisions.
On top of all that, the government paying for these network extensions is just a form of corporate welfare, is it not? I thought the Dems were opposed to that. I guess not if it gets them votes in GOP country, eh?
Shucks. All the years of going to the library, I never thought of insisting the taxpayers stock my bookshelves at home……
As long as we are talking about “rights,” I have to mention something I just learned. I’m helping with the reporting on the DTV transition today and the number of calls our local stations, etc. are getting from people who are having problems.
I just spoke to the St. Louis Fire Department. Seems that some folks - just a handful - are actually calling 911 because they’ve lost TV reception.
I don’t know that loss of your TV signal quite reaches the threshold of “emergency.”
Mr. Barker. After a couple years advance notice, two delays, government converter cupons, thousands of public service ads and news reports; anyone who lost TV reception today doesn’t deserve any sympathy.
Is Internet access a right? Yes! But that doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means.
It kills me that people don’t understand the concept of individual rights. Yes, you have the right to access the Internet, in that if you own a computer or the necessary technology to do so, and have arranged for a connection from some service provider, there is nothing to stop you getting online.
A right to access the Internet does not mean, however, that someone “owes” you the means to do so. The government is not responsible for extending broadband access out to the rural areas, or anywhere for that matter. In a free market, such as we formerly had in the USA, private companies would arise to tap that market.
I HAVE A RIGHT TO THE TRUTH THAT THE INTERNET CONTAINS DESPITE BUSH AND BARRY’S ATTEMPTS TO SQUELCH THE TRUTH! GO AHEAD AND TASER ME BIOCHES! I KNOW THE TRUTH AND MANY MORE ARE WAKING UP AND SMELLING IT EVERY DAY!
Is it a individual right like life and liberty? No.
Is it a necessity in an area? Increasingly so. There are a number of government services (for example, unemployment compensation (which people and their employers PAID into) which require a computer to access. The person at the office just points you to the terminal. The government should see that, at minimum, the Net is accessible in the nearest town, usually through the library system or a community center.
The idea about rural coops as home providers is good. Despite what you might think, there are places (even in the Ozarks) where the topography is such that satellite Internet is not possible, and the fee for such is disproportionate to what people can reasonably pay. Net over electric wire is perfectly feasible, and makes more sense than the vanishing land-line telephone.
I don’t think high speed is a right. Wish it was. Then, 32 miles from the Gateway Arch, I might be able to get some.
Tim…re kids and the Internet:
As long as teachers assign homework that cannot be answered in a library (and there are many, many towns and even counties without libraries in Missouri) the Internet will be required these days to raise kids.
How else are they supposed to get the information? Internet to the schools, and local libraries is something which is needed. You can’t imagine the number of friends from rural Missouri who have asked me to look stuff up for their kids.
The kids should be learning how to look up, and evaluate information for themselves, or yes, unless they are fundamentalists, Amish, or living separate from greater society, they are going to be in a world of hurt in college and work prospects.