Is Internet Access a Human Right? Reflections in the Wake of the Egyptian Protests

Greg Bernhardt

Is access to the Internet a universal human right that should be recognized by the United Nations? *This*question,*buzzing around the world this week, is certainly one that I hadn’t thought of at length until now, so I posed it to … Continue reading →

More...

Evo

That's like asking if a telephone, cell phones, radio, tv, etc... is a human right. I say no.

waht

Why not save a step and say that the internet is something that is and will continue to be. No need for absolutism here.

The internet has potential to provide the ultimate form of communication between people and as a result it can keep governments at bay.

The question is should governments control and manipulate the internet as a propaganda tool?

Pengwuino

No it is not a human right. No one has to pay $50/month for a human right. Especially something that is purely commercial.

WhoWee

I would say internet access is not a human right - reminds me of this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110203/...us_manson_cell

"Mass murderer Charles Manson was caught with a cell phone behind bars for the second time in two years, a California prison official said on Wednesday.

The state bars mobile phones for all inmates, out of a concern they could use the devices to mastermind crimes in the outside world, or arrange attacks on inmates or guards."

It's legal for anyone to purchase a car - only responsible drivers are permitted to drive.

brainstorm

The infrastructure for the communication lines that carry internet signals have to be built and maintained. I don't see why it shouldn't be a right for people to have equal access to the infrastructure based on economic rationality. For example, if someone wants to build their own line to connect to a public server, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? If that's not feasible, then why wouldn't it make sense to regulate the lines as a public monopoly/good and have public accountability for pricing and spending, as with other public utilities?

Still, I don't get how some servers are connected on a public network while others are private intranets. Why does a cable company get to connect to the internet for free but its clients have to pay the cable company? Why can't clients directly connect to the internet the same way the cable company does?

Evo

I don't know what you think a 'public" server" is, but I'm sure it's not what you think.

A private intranet is simply a private data network, often leased by companies to keep their data off of the public internet.

Cable companies do not get to connect to the internet for free.

Pinu7

If the users payed for it, the government is out of line for taking it away.

Evo

In many countries the Government owns the telephone company which is also the internet provider. The government pays for it, the subscribers are...just subscribers. They have no say over if the service stays up.

Even if it is a private company, they provide service according to what the government allows.

When you have a country like Egypt with 4 internet/cell phone operators, it is very easy to shut off service, of course they can be cut. The fact that people have become addicted to them, does not make them a right.

MPLS can be dynamically re-routed around a cut, but the entire network can be compromised quickly.

Intranets can connect to extranets and form an internet link open to outside users. Basically, the more competition, the harder it is to shut down.

Phones, cell phones, internet, mail service, package delivery, radio, tv, etc..., these are services and conveniences.

Trying to shut down internet access would be much more difficult in the US. Thousands of companies own international private lines, which are almost impossible to shut down, that is where the strength lies, although they are being replaced by cheaper MPLS, . Internet carried via frame relay and MPLS can be shut off with a computer command. So can the internet that is not private line based. Satellites can be interfered with.

I'd say land lines are pretty secure. That is how some info out of Egypt was getting out at first.

brainstorm

It must not be because years ago I heard that the internet consisted of numerous private servers that were voluntarily connected as hubs for html transmissions. Supposedly the signal automatically atomized and routed itself in the most efficient way through the network, with different parts of the signal taking different routes through different servers if necessary.

I suppose it makes sense that server-controllers would charge connection fees to other server-controllers, though I don't know what factors would determine the price? If you have a very large rural area with just a few clients, would you have to pay the same price as a server in a dense urban area with loads of clients to share the cost?

I wasn't talking about a closed network. I just meant a server-operator that controlled a subnetwork of connections among its clients and provided them access to the rest of the internet.

But who do they have to pay then? They don't pay every server they connect with in the process of routing information around globally, do they? Do they pay every server they connect with directly? Who owns the big fiber optic lines (are those still called T1?)?

Are the money-hungry of the world to the point of shutting down the internet until they get GDP growth up to target levels? If so, that will be a rough ride. Of course, I shouldn't complain since there are plenty of people, presumably, who have already been priced out of being able to afford an internet connection.

JaredJames

In the UK, BT owns the entire infrastructure. All other companies rent the lines off them and only BT are allowed to conduct work on the lines.

For example, we're with TalkTalk, but it's BT who come out to fix any problems relating to the line.

Now, BT is a private company and not run by the government. But, the government has imposed a set of rules on them. One of them is that every person in the UK has the right to basic telephone services. If you want to read all the rules, the following page tells you all you need to know and is from the regulator themselves (Oftel):

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...s/cons0602.htm

However, that is as far as your rights go. They do not have to provide you with free phone calls (emergencies aside), nor do they have to provide you with internet access. These are additional services, provided to you at your own expense.

JaredJames

You don't know how the internet works do you?

People (companies, government etc) pay for hosting, that is who pays the servers. The public (and those companies, governement etc) then pay separately (this is your internet connection charge and line rental) for the technology to access these servers. You pay for the infrastructure that connects them all.

It's not as straight forward as you are making out.

brainstorm

Maybe not, but it makes them questionable as a legitimate free market commodity if addiction is a serious factor in mitigating consumers' freedom of choice, doen't it?

Still, the issue isn't the service, is it? It's access to the frequencies. Should there be free market competition in building antennae? Should there be a public monopoly that provides free cell-phone service like a library lends out books (that's a weak analogy, I know)?

JaredJames

Who pays for it? It's not cheap to run/maintain. There's a reason companies are trying to put off upgrading the services to accommodate higher data usage with the new smart phones.

I think it's important to point out that any mobile, sim card or not (registered or not), can make emergency calls (for free). It is a legal requirement. Even in areas where you can't use your phone due to poor signal, some emergency calls can be made. My mobile operator can cut me off for not paying a bill, but they can't stop me ringing 999. I have a right to access to emergency services, but not to free phone calls.

brainstorm

Thanks to this thread, I'm learning.

So if I want to invest in a network hub server, I can bid a price to local internet providers and they will pay me if I'm competitively priced and reliable? How would I then connect with other hubs? Would I have to own physical lines between my server and other hub servers?

russ_watters

I don't think that's what is meant by 'a right to internet access'. Similar to the 'right to healthcare' that is popular today, the idea isn't that you have the freedom to get it yourself, but rather that the government must provide it for you. What you describe is covered under anti-descrimination law. That's fine, but electric power is not a right. You have to pay for it.....


....Errrrr......REBOOT!!

When I first saw this thread, I thought it pretty obvious that internet access isn't a right, like others did - so I didn't see any need to add to something I agreed with. But now I realize there is a flaw in that logic. The problem is with the recently perverted definition of "rights" that has me knee-jerk reacting against it. People argue that healthcare is a right, by which they mean the government must provide it for them. But that's not what it means for something to be a "right". To be a right - by the definition used for the past few hundred years - only means the government can't take it from you.

Cell phone networks and the Internet today are for the most part privately owned and sold to the public as a service - I can only assume they are in Egypt as well. Under the traditional definition, then, the government is not entitled to arbitrarily deprive you of the right to purchase goods and services.

However, a revolution is by definition an illegal act. It's the citizens overthrowing the government. The government then does what it needs to do to preserve itself: Martial law infringes on a lot of rights.

So to sum up: legal commerce - and therefore internet access - is a right. However in a revolution, everyone is breaking the law (the people and the government), so the concept of "rights" basically goes out the window.

Evo

It's very complex and exepensive. In order to peer, you need to meet some hefty requirements.