Yes. Higher taxes for the rich means equality.
late comment, But I just read your comment, It’s very sad.

“As of yesterday, all ISPs in the country are required to ensure that each citizen has access to at least a 1Mbps speed connection.”

I can form two assumptions here. Either the ISPs are forced to supply current customers with that speed, or this sentence means it is their responsibility to provide each and every citizen with a means to connect at these speeds. Either way the rights of the provider have been invariably encroached upon. It is by these very methods that a cartel can form. Imagine if you will that I am running a hot dog stand. I am the small businessman and I am in a city, making a modest living, surrounded by lavish restaurants that also serve hot dogs. Now the government decides that hot dogs are a right that every citizen has, and it is up to the hot dog suppliers to make sure every citizen has a hot dog. The larger franchises might be able to absorb the cost of giving out hot dogs by either raising prices to those who are sucker enough to pay for something that’s free, or maybe they receive funding from a public trust. In the former case, I must close up shop, for how can I afford to give away free hot dogs when I am scraping by? The same would apply to small ISPs. Small-time competition closes up, and everyone must choose between a smaller pool of competitors.

Now take the latter case. I can get money from the government as a small hot dog business, in order to ensure that my hot dogs are getting to as many mouths as possible. I can now lower my prices because the burden is shifted to the tax-payer. At the same time, larger hot dog franchises are getting their cut, and probably a much larger cut at that since it is perceived that they are more capable of filling the demand. In both these cases, I and the franchise owner will want to make a profit. I have several options, as does my larger competitor. I can perform the bare minimum when it comes to my “free” hot dogs, doing everything I can to make them less appealing than the hot dogs that I charge for, and try to profit both from the funding I will receive and my own stock. However, I could also do the opposite, and focus on the hot dogs that will be given out at no charge, and when I run out of supplies as I undoubtedly will, and fast, I lobby my government, telling them the funding is not enough, and it is a detriment to small business if I do not receive more. The hot dog franchises, of course, may do the exact same. The next thing you know, politicians have to look at these affairs and decide whether to raise taxes, which is never a good thing for them as far as voters are concerned, or they have to start going around and saying “We can’t fund YOU or YOU or YOU anymore.” Probably they will claim you have not held yourself up to a certain standard. Only that hot dog supplier which is approved by the government is allowed to exist, and the government need only say “Look, we have supplied the people with free food. Oh, we are short on supply, but one day if we persevere we shall all be eating hot dogs!” Then the government hot dog vendor is allowed his space to operate, but I am thrown to the curb, for how could I supply so many hot dogs? And I cannot think of reopening, because the government has required of me to hand out free hot dogs, and they will no long give me funds to do so. It is precisely these so-called “necessary” evils that create monopolies in the market.

As far as AT&T is concerned, I am amazed at how many people do not know that it was the company that lobbied the government to pass an act which made them the monopoly in the first place, but in a world with an infinite amount of knowledge to be passed around, I suppose it should not surprise me so much. I believe AT&T has a company history on their own website which discusses what happened and how they became a monopoly for decades.

I agree wholly that we should have a right to exercise our free speech using the venue of the internet. I merely disagree that anyone but myself shoulders the responsibility for gaining access to that venue. I certainly make no claim that anyone is forcing the government’s hand. I quite openly and passionately said the opposite; they supplied the force. As far as the internet becoming a gated community…I do not see where it ceases to be a global road network simply because I have to pay for a service. I pay for my connection, for subscriptions to things that I want, and for the conveniences I find attractive on the internet. I would love to not have to pay for those things, but who is going to provide them if there is no profit to be had? If, in some fantasy world, a small group of people are the only ones using the internet, who is hearing their voices? The argument that we would be cut off and unheard is ridiculous taken at face value, because the internet would become a useless piece of technology to the masses, and they would be heard in other ways. Businessman would be stuck in their big offices with an internet and zero content other than what other businessman had to see. Since running a business requires feedback from customers, I don’t see how such a situation would last very long at all.

I don’t really know if my viewpoint is of interest to anyone or not. Already someone has shrugged off a previous post as saying nothing, which is his right. But this is what I am doing. I am using my voice on the venue of the internet. Not everyone cares. Possibly no one cares. Possibly, the site administrator will become furious at the idea that I dare to even make my silly argument, and he will erase my posts and block my IP. This is also fine by me. My viewpoint is precisely that: In there interest of making sure my voice is heard, do I have the government pass a law forcing Zeropaid to not remove my posts? I suggest that this would be absurd, and a violation of Zeropaid’s rights. It is the difference between copying a digital song, (which is absurdly called theft even though the song is not removed from the possession of the creator) and telling the artist how to sing, how often to sing, what he can and can’t sing, etc. It would have been enough for Finland’s legislature to say, “Hey, we aren’t going to get in the way of people using the internet.”

I hope I made my position a little more clear this time around. My apologies for being so wordy.

There is no basis on which you can even compare Internet access and driving, let alone bring about the potential dangerousness of driving.

“Internet Access” as a fundamental rights does NOT mean that every citizen should be supplied with computers, a broadband connection et cetera. Just as the second amendment does not in the US mean that the government is legally obliged to give every citizen a gun, and the first amendment does not mean the government is obligated to make every citizen speak his piece.

Very few people want the government to run the internet. And so, most of your points don’t even need to be raised.

The only reason a government should interfere at all in the market is to ensure impartiality. Governmental intervention when a company monopolizes the market and employs unfair trade practice is a necessary evil (as in AT&T). This is where the idea of net neutrality comes from – without that very necessary piece of legislation, internet turns from being a global road network to a series of gated communities where you’ll need to pay admission fees and obtain permits for each one.

Thus, a foundation of putting internet access forth as a basic right on the same level as free speech is the minimum requirement to ensure that free speech and right of assembly are actually observed in a society which relies to an ever-increasing amount on the internet backbone.