Broadband Access - When Is A Right Right?

This initiative by Finland is an extreme version of a  growing trend to extend the definition of the social  goal of universal access to include broadband access as well as telephone service. I am sure that it will generate heated discussions in the U.S. about the distinctions, overlaps and boundaries between "inalienable rights" and social objectives such as "universal access", as well as the means to accomplish them, and laws if any regarding their validity and enforcement.

Many people in the U.S. argue that we all have the right to own and carry guns, because this right is enshrined in the Constitution. They also argue that we do not have a comparable right of access to affordable health care (or cars) because these are not defined in the Constitution, which was written when very primitive (by today's standards) guns were available, but cars were not, and understanding of the causes of disease and how to treat them did not include any knowledge of the roles of viruses, bacteria, DNA and other discoveries of science or the  tools of modern medical technologies. On the other hand, how in today's U.S. can anyone realistically make a living or pursue happiness and exercise other freedoms if they do not have ready access both to health care when needed and to prevent disease, and  in many places to a car. In contrast it is to be hoped that many of us, at least in civilian life, will be able to live long and well without ever having to use a gun, although some of us may choose to do so for the purpose of hunting. So which of these services and products is more important, and where does or should universal broadband access fall, as a right or as a desirable social objective, or as a service that should be left entirely up to the free market or purely commercial forces to provide if they can? Can this goal be reached through purely commercial, profit-motivated means? If it can then there is no need for any financial or legal intervention.by the government. However the U.S. has pursued a policy or goal of universal service with regard to basic telephony, involving much criticized subsidy mechanisms, so electronic communication has some tradition of being viewed as vital support for our economic and social lives to which everyone should have access. Personally I would argue that access to broadband is not a fundamental right in the same category as freedom of speech or freedom from discrimination or the right to an attorney. I would also argue that neither is freedom to own a gun, or at least not guns with the immensely more effective ability to kill other humans than the guns available in the late 18th century, but that is not the issue here. If it makes economic sense and is considered to be socially desirable for everyone to have access to broadband, even those who cannot reasonably afford it, because of the net benefits to all that will result, then there is a justification for extending the goal of universal access to encompass broadband. At least in the U.S. it will be more effective and less divisive to argue for universal broadband access in these terms and not try to amend the Constitution to include it as a new legally enforceable right, or spark a debate about "rights" that will simply throw more fuel onto the destructive fires already being  stoked by shameless demagogues.

This author consults with leading institutions through GLG