The Right to Communication?

[delicti]

Continuing with rights we don't have, but could, here's one that is literally evolving in front of us.

We all know; in a free country, we have the right to free speech. But what if the ways one could be heard were to change forever?

Of course, we already know that we're interacting in ways the average person didn't think was imaginable as little as 30 years ago. The internet has revolutionized the world; people go shopping online, people look for jobs online, and of course, people express their free speech online. The internet itself is evolving - at one point dial-up connections were state of the art; now anything short of a DSL connection and things barely chug along. And the faster the fastest connections get, the more dynamic things keep getting.

But therein may lie a problem. In less than 15 years, we've gone from college computer geek novelty, to new method of social interaction, free speech, and even just getting the essentials in your life. But what about those who don't have it?

Worldwide, only about 12% of people have internet access. In America, internet usage can be broken down in different ways, but ultimately poorer people are less likely to use the internet:

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=849
http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_4.26.06.htm

Can you imagine a tool that is so essential to a modern existence not being part of your life at all? Now imagine the benefits the internet has given us in the last 12 years (since the start of the World Wide Web), and imagine how much further we'll be 12 years from now. Can you imagine how much of a divide there is going to be between those who have the internet and those who do not? We already do basic things on the internet occasionally, what if it was our primary source of these things?

Is it time to update our government to make sure all our citizens have these tools at their disposal? If the way we communicate our free speech itself obsoletes speech that is free, then are we really preserving free speech at all?

In Estonia, they believe so:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0701/p07s01-woeu.html

And they're not alone in countries trying to bring internet to the masses. In America, however, time and time again public internet access projects keep getting squashed by large ISPs. Who is in the right?

Again, I suggest a tiered approach. Obviously, not everyone needs a FiOS connection, but a lot of people want them. At the same time, we could create slowly incrementing "minimum speed" for access to progress at. This could be implemented fairly easily using the current 802.11n standard, with the right amplification. Everyone who wanted access above that speed could still pay an ISP for better access.

So, what does everyone think? Do we need to update our free speech statues to protect the ability to express oneself, or is this something that is purely sci-fi?

[Linen]

Well, some people may not have a public library within close distance, but many many public libraries have computers with high-speed internet now that are accessable to anyone. So if someone really really wants free internet access, it's not that difficult.

However, I realize many cities don't have these facilities yet, and many people live out in the country so it wouldn't be much help to them. Also, many libraries AND businesses even have wireless connections for those who have their own laptops but can't afford a monthly access fee.

I know it's a pain in the ass not to have internet at home. Trust me, I went a year without it and I felt lost even though I could access it at work and take my laptop to WIFI spots to access it.

It would definitely be nice if this were available to absolutely everyone. It does seem to be getting easier, though, for many people at least in the US to access the internet for free, and I assume it's similar in other well-developed countries. In some countries, though, it's probably the least of their concerns if they spend most of their time worrying about how to find their next meal or where to sleep.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Linen

Well, some people may not have a public library within close distance, but many many public libraries have computers with high-speed internet now that are accessable to anyone.

...

It would definitely be nice if this were available to absolutely everyone. It does seem to be getting easier, though, for many people at least in the US to access the internet for free, and I assume it's similar in other well-developed countries.

Well put; here's why I think that libraries are an inadequate source for internet access:

-Most libraries now use filtering software to make sure that the internet access they have is available for specific use only.
http://libraryfiltering.org/

-Additionally, internet use at libraries is limited to resources which are expensive and hard to maintain (PCs, routers, the usual), and upgrading these things ultimate cut into the library system's main purpose, which is to maintain records.

-Also, since the hours of operation are limited, and not everyone is able to travel to a library regularly (consider people with disabilities, or people who are housebound), it causes a huge problem of getting the people to the internet, as opposed to getting the internet to the people.

I think since the current trend is to put the internet onto mobile device. Prices on mobile devices drop so rapidly, I think it would be reasonable to assume that by the time a large project like this were completed, most people would have easy access to mobile phones or similar with such access. It could be very much like HAM radio - it's free to use, as long as you have the equipment to use it. Unlike HAM radio, it could also be cheap to get onto as well. ;-)

[Linen]

^ That's not a bad idea, though what would people do if they needed to print something and didn't have a printer? You're right about the hours & equiptment being a problem.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Linen

^ That's not a bad idea, though what would people do if they needed to print something and didn't have a printer? You're right about the hours & equiptment being a problem.

I would probably be hesitant to provide too much access to free printing. As someone who has to keep track of printer supplies at my work, it's amazing to see how little "essential" print jobs actually are essential. That may be an opportunity for the libraries to continue some basic services, but we should probably try to make things as paperless as possible.

[Linen]

Originally Posted by delicti

I would probably be hesitant to provide too much access to free printing. As someone who has to keep track of printer supplies at my work, it's amazing to see how little "essential" print jobs actually are essential. That may be an opportunity for the libraries to continue some basic services, but we should probably try to make things as paperless as possible.

I understand what you're saying. I mean it's best for the environment not to print more than we have to, but it would be a good thing to have if people needed to print out resumes for job interviews, school papers (and didn't have resources at school to do so), or other essential documents.

[Drake Dun]

There's a difference between freedom of speech, and socializing access to a means of communication. The two have, in fact, almost nothing to do with each other.

The Internet is already a radically more democratic medium than television or newspapers, and a very real threat to the status quo. Any program which began with providing free access to it would turn out to be a way for the powers that be to get their foot into the door and subvert that freedom.

Drake

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

There's a difference between freedom of speech, and socializing access to a means of communication. The two have, in fact, almost nothing to do with each other.

The Internet is already a radically more democratic medium than television or newspapers, and a very real threat to the status quo. Any program which began with providing free access to it would turn out to be a way for the powers that be to get their foot into the door and subvert that freedom.

Drake

I would tend to agree, except there's some differences I would establish as to why this, while socializing access, is not as simple as that.

I think that this would at least create more avenues for free speech to flow through. By ensuring people access to the internet, we are then preventing the government with removing access to it.

Right now many countries have very real restrictions on peoples' abilities to interact on the web in the way they see fit. China is the most obvious example of this. This would, hopefully, prevent this from happening.

Another important thing to mention is that while there will obviously be infrastructure requirements for this, it is not so close to regulating the speech itself. While we certainly have restrictions on real-world speech currently, no such restrictions exist on the internet. This could almost be seen as expanding ones' ability to exercise free speech, since it ensures access to a largely unregulated space.

Sure, the government could then try to take that right away, but it could do the same with any right. A successful democracy remains so only by the vigilance of its citizenry.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Linen

I understand what you're saying. I mean it's best for the environment not to print more than we have to, but it would be a good thing to have if people needed to print out resumes for job interviews, school papers (and didn't have resources at school to do so), or other essential documents.

I agree. However, in retrospect, we should consider that printing is a largely ambiguous term, and depending on what you need to print may drastically change the parameters of what is required. Furthermore, photo printing, mass-copying, and similar things exist in the private realm in ways that are both affordable and unrestrictive.

I think that we should focus more on the ability to express free speech on the internet, as well as perform essential functions of our lives. Many jobs do not require resumes, and schools can provide printers if they require printed copies of reports. I think going too far in that direction may lead us down a slippery slope that neither of us will be particularly fond of.

[Umbrellacake]

No. The pitch here - expression of free speech - doesn't require a nation-wide internet connection, however some teenagers may insist. We don't rely on such things, so funding a silly program like that would be ridiculous considering the principle alone.

As far as ownership by private citizens goes, internet access is a luxury that is not needed. People who don't have internet do just fine without it. The only people who have a difficult time imagining life without the internet are those who have already become accustomed to it and can actually pay for it out of their own pockets.

Free speech owes nothing to the internet. Sure, it's a handy way to get your ideas out there - but no one's stopping you from finding other, simpler, and less expensive ways to do the same.

[Splintered]

100 m/bit fur alles!

This is something that I have a lot of personal experience in, because I've run system administrations on two public computers. We have just *two* computers in our store, and that's already a handful considering the traffic we get.

The legality involved is incredible. We are responsible for what is searched on our computers. We are responsible for what is downloaded on our bandwith. If some moron kid decides he wants 40GB of Tupac and Eminem, we end up paying the bandwith costs. Some asshole looks up child pornography? We get hit. The anarchist cookbook? We get hit.

Just think about it. The 13 DNS Root Servers we have that support the current 12% of the world can *barely* do just that. Think about how much bandwith you'd need for all of the Youtube surfing, porn downloading, Slashdotting maniacs out there.

I agree with you on the 'moral' side. Free speech protections should be protected. We should protect online speech just as much as we should verbal speech.

However, unless you're planning to pay for more DNS servers, more fiberoptic cable to get the wifi access across the globe, etc, you're not really going to give internet to everyone. Even a BitTorrent style approach would barely work, because if one piece of the puzzle collapses, you're entirely screwed. It's like having all of your seeds exceed their bandwith limit.

[CptSternn]

Many European nations are giving away broadband access as a commodity much like water. Sweden has the whole country wired with giga-bit connections, for free. If you live in Sweden, you get free unlimited giga-bit broadband for free. They feel it's that important as well.

Germany is implementing the same policy now, but it's still not free for the whole country yet.

Ireland is working on getting the country 100% covered right now - in the next 5 years all homes are supposed to have access.

That being said, the only way to not be censored/filtered is to have your own connection. Even here in Ireland the libraries filter search results and sites. It's to stop the pre-teens from downloading pr0n, but it does interfere with legitimate research as well.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Many European nations are giving away broadband access as a commodity much like water. Sweden has the whole country wired with giga-bit connections, for free. If you live in Sweden, you get free unlimited giga-bit broadband for free. They feel it's that important as well.

This is what may force the hand of the US government. Unfortunately I'm on a different laptop, but I do have a link I planned on sharing later in this discussion showing that 8 countries so far made this into a right.

While the notion of this being a human right is debatable, it may ultimately be the marketplace that makes us have to add something like this to our laws. If Americans are not granted internet access in a world that is providing high-speed access to its citizenry, we stand to lose substantial opportunities to capitalize emerging markets that require it.

Unfortunately, a large part of resistance to this is going to come from the US bearing the lion's share of R&D costs for development of the internet. Obviously it was a US creation, but we also still have the largest internet technology industries in America. Companies like Verizon, Cisco, IBM, Intel et al. will be extremely resistant to not being able to recoup R&D costs for technology that has been made from luxury to necessity in just over 10 years time.

Combine this with the fact that the American landmass and population distribution makes wide scale roll-outs of this cumbersome, and the fact that we still haven't paid completely for past roll-outs of internet technology, and you've got a huge problem.

You could argue that it is much easier for Estonia to make internet access a right. After all, they don't need to finish paying for generations of routing centers and wires that have been extremely high cost to build out in each incarnation. They got in now, when the technology is cheap, and won't face dilemmas like we're having with infrastructure until at least 10-20 years from now. Innovation costs money, and usually it's the second or third person to market with a technology who is best able to capitalize on a technology.

However, this does nothing to ease the problem of how lack of freely accessible internet technology is going to cause a US lag in the marketplace. Being the leader is great until someone else figures out how to do what you're doing cheaper. Hence the call for governmental intervention.

So, if we assume that this service is becoming a necessity, how do we implement in a way that, again, has minimal costs and marketplace interference?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Splintered

100 m/bit fur alles!

The legality involved is incredible. We are responsible for what is searched on our computers. We are responsible for what is downloaded on our bandwith. If some moron kid decides he wants 40GB of Tupac and Eminem, we end up paying the bandwith costs. Some asshole looks up child pornography? We get hit. The anarchist cookbook? We get hit.

Just think about it. The 13 DNS Root Servers we have that support the current 12% of the world can *barely* do just that. Think about how much bandwith you'd need for all of the Youtube surfing, porn downloading, Slashdotting maniacs out there.

Absolutely great points, even if they're going to go over a lot of peoples' heads. ;-) There is a huge amount of legal reform that needs to be made to make ISPs less liable (or not at all) for the people who use their connections. It's not just the government either; the RIAA has gone after ISPs for the usage patterns of their subscribers. This needs a major fix, as it not only is unfair to ISPs, but it also creates policy that moves away from individual freedom/responsibility.

As far as DNS is concerned, Internic has had its fair share of cock-ups. I'm not sure what is being done to fix this currently, but I do know that the US government's desire to control DNS has only impared internet growth.

If I trusted the UN more, I would say they have a great opportunity to be the curator of expanded DNS server farms, as well as bring us into a world of IPv6. Now that cell phones, cars, etc are getting wired, as well as this phenomenon being spread worldwide, IPv6 is going to be a necessity soon.

[CptSternn]

Delicti -

Don't get me started on ISPs/phone companies in America. A shower of feckin cunts they are sure. I'm sure everyone here who has lived in America has horror stories.

What most people don't know is that the excessive rates they charge are based on HUGE profit margins. I'm not talking about IBM, Cisco, etc. as much as I am Verizon, AT&T, and that lot.

They are the biggest stumbling block in America when it comes to internet access.

When I was there, I had COVAD for a while. They gave me a 1gig up/1gig down DSL connection to my house for $25.00 a month. I had it for 3 years. Then Verizon came in and bought up COVAD and half of the other DSL companies on the east coast. I was then given the option to have my service cancelled, or 'switched' to the new scheme, which was 768down/128up, for $39.99 a month, with no real-world IP's (I had 5 with COVAD).

It was a disgrace. They allowed large companies to swallow up the smaller ones until there was no market except for Verizon, who then jacked the prices and lowered the services.

The same goes for the mobile phone market (what ye call cell phones). Much like television technology, America is a decade behind the rest of the world, thanks to large phone companies doing the exact same thing.

In Europe, we get cheap mobile phones that operate on a different band than US phones. Our phones have 3 bands, so they work in America as well, but also worldwide. They are cheap, readily avialable, and include features not found in the states. The industry lobbied congress a decade ago to stop providers from offering too many services on their phones to 'promote more competition'. In reality, it did the opposit. It allowed current providers to keep out new competitors and then with customers having only one or two options, they were forced to choose ootions without any new services.

I remeber when the Matrix came out, and everyone wanted the Nokia flip phone they had in the film. It wasn't made in America as the laws blocked the sale of it because it had too many options.

Our phones here are like small laptops. They sync with Outlook, show movies, you can get satellite TV to them - you can video chat - they play Playstation games. The phones here are simply put, years beyond anything they even sell in America. All that AND they do it for so cheap every 12 year old in Europe has two.

My Sony Walkman phone has 4 gigs of memory and I watch telly on it, plus check email, use a full web browser, and more - for no extra costs.

Bottom line is that until American companies are taken out of the equation and not allowed to write policy on the matter, your not going to see open access to the web, down any venue.

Not as long as they can block it by lobbying congress, stifle competition, and then sit on their arses and not worry about R&D since the American people are forced then to use their service for lack of anything better.

[delicti]

I agree that the large ISP make large profit margins that are unreasonable, but you're mixing up a lot of facts here, so let me clarify some. I know the IT world can be confusing (hey, I work in it).

Originally Posted by CptSternn

What most people don't know is that the excessive rates they charge are based on HUGE profit margins. I'm not talking about IBM, Cisco, etc. as much as I am Verizon, AT&T, and that lot.

That largely depends on the ISP.

A friend who was a Comcast technician told me that it takes Comcast 20 million dollars a town on average to put new wires in that support Broadband. That's a lot of money to recoup, and I think they're running a legitimate profit margin if he is to be believed.

Verizon is definitely sitting on old architecture though. They developed ADSL and DSL with government support back in 1989. Since they are usually allowed governmentally backed monopolies when they sign deals with States, they usually are as uncompetitive as it gets.

When I was there, I had COVAD for a while. They gave me a 1gig up/1gig down DSL connection to my house for $25.00 a month. I had it for 3 years. Then Verizon came in and bought up COVAD and half of the other DSL companies on the east coast.

Whoa, I think you're confusing your Gigs and your Megs. 1 Gbps isn't within the ability of the DSL spec, or the ADSL spec. The ADSL2 spec leaves it open for speculation, but it starts at 15 Mbps, so it's unlikely they actually expect it to be able to handle 1Gbps.

http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.992.5-200501-I/en

Covad wasn't bought; it sounds like their contract in your area was though. They still offer services in some areas, but that is at 15 Mbps, which is still a very good package. It's not even close to 1Gbps; careful about your terminology.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/060107-covad.html

It was a disgrace. They allowed large companies to swallow up the smaller ones until there was no market except for Verizon, who then jacked the prices and lowered the services.

That is classic Verizon behavior. This is the problem with government-sanctioned monopolies. While I usually like privatization, that particular model has been horrendous.

like television technology, America is a decade behind the rest of the world, thanks to large phone companies doing the exact same thing.

Actually, European TV has been available in PAL or SECAM formats. These formats have a resolution of 525 lines x 50 lines. A good deal of American TV is in NTSC, which is 425 lines x 50 lines.

http://www.high-techproductions.com/pal,ntsc.htm

Both Europe and the US is pursuing HDTV, but my understanding is that it hasn't been going any faster there than here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25948

In Europe, we get cheap mobile phones that operate on a different band than US phones. Our phones have 3 bands, so they work in America as well, but also worldwide.

Actually, I have a quad band phone that works overseas. Most providers offer at least a couple.

The industry lobbied congress a decade ago to stop providers from offering too many services on their phones to 'promote more competition'. In reality, it did the opposit.

Can you back this up? It sounds believable, and while we are lagging behind countries like Japan and South Korea for cell phone tech, I'd have to see an article stating this.

It allowed current providers to keep out new competitors and then with customers having only one or two options, they were forced to choose ootions without any new services.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I can get service from at least 4 carriers in my area, and all of them come with dozens of plans.

I remeber when the Matrix came out, and everyone wanted the Nokia flip phone they had in the film. It wasn't made in America as the laws blocked the sale of it because it had too many options.

Slow down there cowboy. I know you're trying to make a point, but you're way off the mark here. The chip that allows flip phones to operate is made by a company in Rhode Island. I know this because I worked for them for a time.

The flip phone itself first came out as a cell phone in 1994, 5 years before the Matrix was release. It had been released as an analog phone in 1989 before that.

Our phones here are like small laptops. They sync with Outlook, show movies, you can get satellite TV to them - you can video chat - they play Playstation games.

Same here, depending on the phone you get. The things we don't do is video chat and satellite TV on phones. That's largely because Americans don't do video chat in general (the video chat system we had at an old job got used twice in 5 years), and the mobile TV market isn't very good here, either.

My Sony Walkman phone has 4 gigs of memory and I watch telly on it, plus check email, use a full web browser, and more - for no extra costs.

The phone you're talking about is the W-series by Sony Ericsson. It's a European phone, but you can buy it unlocked over here for about $200. You can buy equivalent models over here, although the leading phones with those types of features are made by RIM and currently Apple.

Bottom line is that until American companies are taken out of the equation and not allowed to write policy on the matter, your not going to see open access to the web, down any venue.

I completely agree.

Not as long as they can block it by lobbying congress, stifle competition, and then sit on their arses and not worry about R&D since the American people are forced then to use their service for lack of anything better.

Well, I agree with the premise of this. The lobbying does need to stop.

The R&D costs depend greatly from tech industry to tech industry. Router and networking industries are extremely competitive. Line providers are not. If you think the internet for an individual is expensive, you should see what they charge businesses.

Ultimately, I think that 802.11n wireless is going to be the disruptive technology in this market. All it's going to take is a decently-spec'ed router with open source firmware and a high gain antenna, and you could provide service to your entire block. Of course, you still have to pay for the line up, but I think that once local principalities see what 802.11n can do, they'll start forcing more cooperation out of line providers.

We'll see, at least.

[Splintered]

Sternn, you may know more about me on issues such as economics.
But on technological issues:

First off, your phones may be like small laptops. Unfortunately, we can get the same technology over here as well. It's not *limited* to the European Union and Asia. However, there is simply no market for it over here. The infrastructure of video phone calling on cellphones has been in place for quite a while. There is simply no desire to move over too it.

You can play many games on phones over here. However, for it too look anywhere decent, you need a fair sized screen. The PSP and Nintendo DS deliver that. However, if I want a really small phone, a large screen is naturally counter-intuitive to a small design. (Not to mention that more and more cellphones are coming equipped to deal with games).

I still hold a lot of hope for OpenMoko. It looks like it could change a lot of things if it becomes successful.

Originally Posted by delicti

If I trusted the UN more, I would say they have a great opportunity to be the curator of expanded DNS server farms, as well as bring us into a world of IPv6. Now that cell phones, cars, etc are getting wired, as well as this phenomenon being spread worldwide, IPv6 is going to be a necessity soon.

I am really wondering if IPv6 will even be enough. I know it allocates a lot of new space for people, and can easily cover the population five or six times over. However, if it becomes an age where everyone's iPods, Cellphones, Cars, etc, are becoming hooked up to the net, it makes me wonder if we'll soon loose the space for that, especially if massive chunks are pre-allocated for various organizations, so that the end consumer has very little access to IPs.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

I agree that the large ISP make large profit margins that are unreasonable, but you're mixing up a lot of facts here, so let me clarify some. I know the IT world can be confusing (hey, I work in it).

As an MCSE, CCNP, and former teacher for Microsoft, I'm quite aware of the technical side of the argument mate.

That largely depends on the ISP.

A friend who was a Comcast technician told me that it takes Comcast 20 million dollars a town on average to put new wires in that support Broadband. That's a lot of money to recoup, and I think they're running a legitimate profit margin if he is to be believed.

Verizon is definitely sitting on old architecture though. They developed ADSL and DSL with government support back in 1989. Since they are usually allowed governmentally backed monopolies when they sign deals with States, they usually are as uncompetitive as it gets.

The fact that each year they post record profits, like the oil companies, says to me they are doing more than 'recouping' their losses. Record profits, which are paid out to shareholders in dividens are not part of the losses the are recouping, therefore high prices are not being driven by any stop loss polices.

Whoa, I think you're confusing your Gigs and your Megs.

Typo.

Covad wasn't bought; it sounds like their contract in your area was though. They still offer services in some areas, but that is at 15 Mbps, which is still a very good package. It's not even close to 1Gbps; careful about your terminology.

XO was my provider, but XO, and a dozen others were all part of COVAD before being bought out by Verizon.

Actually, European TV has been available in PAL or SECAM formats. These formats have a resolution of 525 lines x 50 lines. A good deal of American TV is in NTSC, which is 425 lines x 50 lines.

The US is the only country using NTSC, PAL is worldwide, which is why we all have cheap plasma screens and America doesn't.

Both Europe and the US is pursuing HDTV, but my understanding is that it hasn't been going any faster there than here.

It's going brilliant here, thanks to our own monopolies. We have Sky TV. All digital, HDTV signal with available Tivo-cloned services available. The only option really, other than a one alternative in Ireland called Chorus (less stuff and not digital) and NTL in UK. 90% of all persons with telly use Sky here. It's like using Verizon if you live on the east coast - its that or the rabbit ears, which are going away in 2008 permanately, so its switch to Sky or not get any telly.

Actually, I have a quad band phone that works overseas. Most providers offer at least a couple.

Thats the exception, not the rule. Here, all phones are quad band to accommodate movement across Europe.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I can get service from at least 4 carriers in my area, and all of them come with dozens of plans.

Can you get game services? Can you get TV (the aforementioned Sky for a few extra bob will get you all the digital channels, hundreds, sent to your phone. You can watch digital satellite telly on your phone? Do video chat? Go to the phone website to download Playstation games to your phone? All on top of the basic phone services?

The flip phone itself first came out as a cell phone in 1994, 5 years before the Matrix was release. It had been released as an analog phone in 1989 before that.

The EXACT phone that was used in the movie The Matrix has never been made available in America. I'm not talking about 'flip phones' in general, I didn't say that.

http://www.scary-monsters.com/faqs.html#5

Check it out.

Same here, depending on the phone you get. The things we don't do is video chat and satellite TV on phones. That's largely because Americans don't do video chat in general (the video chat system we had at an old job got used twice in 5 years), and the mobile TV market isn't very good here, either.

What market? It's just an option on our phones. Your providers don't offer it. Doesn't matter what they try and tell you the reasoning is - you DON'T have access to those services.

http://cellphones.about.com/od/buyer...ean_phones.htm

The phone you're talking about is the W-series by Sony Ericsson. It's a European phone, but you can buy it unlocked over here for about $200. You can buy equivalent models over here, although the leading phones with those types of features are made by RIM and currently Apple.

Buying one isn't going to get you the services and options available if your phone provider doesn't offer them. Hard to watch the satellite telly on your phone even if it has it if your provider isn't streaming it. Same goes for all those other options on it - you may be able to utilise some, but your still screwed on the really cool stuff like video chat, POP3 access, voice access and recognition, etc. - all the stuff that comes standard on our phones here these days.

On top of that, we are allowed to switch carriers on our phone, whenever we choose. Fed up with your provider? Call and cancel service, then simple go to another carrier who gives you a new SIM card (small chip) which you swap out in your phone under the battery. Now your a customer of a different network and you can choose to keep your old number, or just get a new one.

In fact, if your phone dies, or you have a pay-as-you-go phone you buy credit for here you can take our your SIM, throw it into your mates phone, and use it with your account. You can buy a second hand phone and simply swap out your SIM and use it without having to call the company.

Can't do that with American phones either.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

As an MCSE, CCNP, and former teacher for Microsoft, I'm quite aware of the technical side of the argument mate.

The fact that each year they post record profits, like the oil companies, says to me they are doing more than 'recouping' their losses. Record profits, which are paid out to shareholders in dividens are not part of the losses the are recouping, therefore high prices are not being driven by any stop loss polices.

...

What market? It's just an option on our phones. Your providers don't offer it. Doesn't matter what they try and tell you the reasoning is - you DON'T have access to those services.

...

In fact, if your phone dies, or you have a pay-as-you-go phone you buy credit for here you can take our your SIM, throw it into your mates phone, and use it with your account. You can buy a second hand phone and simply swap out your SIM and use it without having to call the company.

Can't do that with American phones either.

This is all very interesting but now it's getting quite a ways off-topic. There's plenty that can be talked about with different industries with supply and demand, and lack of government intervention with monopoly and oligopoly. It could be its own thread, but I think you'll just find that it'll result in bickering about how much government should intervene with industry.

Anyways, I'll walk away from this part of the discussion, since I'm actually interested in peoples' opinions as to what rights we don't have but could, and may eventually have. Yes, I know it's all very sci-fi, but doesn't that make it a little more fun?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

This is all very interesting but now it's getting quite a ways off-topic. There's plenty that can be talked about with different industries with supply and demand, and lack of government intervention with monopoly and oligopoly. It could be its own thread, but I think you'll just find that it'll result in bickering about how much government should intervene with industry.

Anyways, I'll walk away from this part of the discussion, since I'm actually interested in peoples' opinions as to what rights we don't have but could, and may eventually have. Yes, I know it's all very sci-fi, but doesn't that make it a little more fun?

I would argue that this is exactly what the topic is about. We are talking about rights aren't we? The right to communication, more specifically access to the Internet.

With large corporations in any one country setting guidelines and being able to write policy that restricts access to promote profit, we get into the real issue that where do we draw the line. We also have to address current policy and groups that support those policies and how they affect citizens where those policies are in place.

What your seeing happening in America is not an isolated incident. Ireland and the UK both have similar problems with a small oligarchy controlling access, and limits placed on persons within the society based on class.

Thats the real issue here, and addressing it, along with pointing out where current policy is failiing is the topic, isn't it?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I would argue that this is exactly what the topic is about. We are talking about rights aren't we? The right to communication, more specifically access to the Internet.

Absolutely. Although I think our ranting about cell phones and HDTV is probably best addressed elsewhere.

Thats the real issue here, and addressing it, along with pointing out where current policy is failiing is the topic, isn't it?

Agreed, so let's stick to ISPs and Line Providers. I think that 802.11n will offer a new opportunity to provide a base level of access for minimal cost. The real cost is, of course, the upstream via land lines.

So how do we implement a complete solution? Can we create a minimal speed that needs to be available for free? Do we have the government run a series of routing centers and access points and force ISPs to connect to these centers? Are there other solutions that are being overlooked?