A few weeks back, I read an article about some jurisdictions which have established that people have the legal right to broadband access. As I was out today, listening to my iPod, this article came to mind as I was somewhat irked that I didn't have WiFi Access.
I then started thinking about this article and I wonder where this issue of if electronic access is a right or if it should be a privilege. Relating back to my last newsletter article about how we chase technology's tail, how long will it be before it is deemed that the minimum 1 megabit broadband access is insufficent. I would not at all surprised to see that as the technology matures, that faster Internet access is considered a legal right.
Reading on Wikipedia about this, Estonia, France, Finland and Greece all have made Internet access a basic human right. What I'd like to know is who pays for this. Of course we all know that it's everyone else that pays.
I suppose that I should be more understanding of the underprivileged that don't have access to Internet. Certainly, there is a very legitimate rationale for providing Internet access to those that normally can't get it. I'm certain that not having access to it puts these individuals at a significant disadvantage when it comes to job searchs, housing and community and social services, so I suppose that it's at first glance not a bad idea.
On a related note, it also appears that there are a number of cities (Austin TX, Portland OR, Atlanta GA and San Francisco CA among others) who are attempting to enable WiFi access across most of the metropolitian areas. As a consumer of WiFi, I think that it's a wonderful idea, but I wonder if there is enough infrastructure in place in order to fully implement this type of a solution and I question who should be paying the bill for this.
