2 Comments

claudio
March 8th, 2010 | 1:40 pm

Maybe is only a matter of name changing.
Fundamental human wishes would be more apropiate the way we feel them today.

R Hampton
March 8th, 2010 | 4:27 pm

The US Constitution protects the right to access the Internet as an exercise of free speech and the operation of a free press. This does not, however, obligate the federal government to provide a free Internet connection for all. Especially relevant to this discussion, then, is the public library. Most countries, including ours, provide free libraries to the public to maintain a literate and informed people. Certainly a strong case can be made that the Internet is already an extension, and will become an eventual replacement, of traditional libraries. Thus we can conclude that both governments and people have a need for public internet access.

What then can be said of a right? The FCC manages the public airwaves and increasingly internet traffic is sent through the air. Even when sent through cable, a substantial portion was funded with federal tax dollars. So is information any more or less fundamental to human civilization then roads or sewers?

The question then becomes a matter of cost and economic philosophy. Hypothetically, if it is less expensive to provide internet access then to provide clean air and water, highways, and “free” markets, what then would be the (practical) objection?