ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Finland's right to broadband: kind of like access to electricity, water

By | July 2, 2010, 3:20am PDT

Summary: When it comes to broadband as a legal right, maybe Finland has it right.

The government in Finland has made it official: access to a broadband connection of at least 1 megabit per second is now a legal right for the residents of that country. And by 2015, the government hopes to impose minimum connection of 100 mbps to its residents.

Granted, Finland is a small, sparsely populated country and about 96 percent of the country is already connected, according to a BBC report, so the whole legal right thing doesn’t bring about any immediate change.

Still, broadband as a legal right is an interesting concept. Increasingly, as the Internet becomes the pipeline for all types of information, its presence in any home in any country is more like that of a utility, comparable to electricity, water or a telephone. And like those instances, the utility is simply available. The service isn’t provided. Consumers still have to pay to turn the service on and a monthly bill for usage.

The only thing that’s required of the power companies or water companies is to make sure that a home has access to their services. It’s not required that they be provided for free. And, the utility companies don’t have to provide the products that utilize the services. After all, the electric company isn’t giving away table lamps to plug into the electrical outlets.

When you think of it like that, the burden here becomes that of the Internet service provider, which is now required to deliver at least 1 mbps of broadband, and soon 100 mbps, to every resident. Certainly, those providers would pass along their investment costs to their customers. But at least they would be in compliance with everyone’s legal right.

And now, when other technologies emerge - whether smart grid electricity or Internet-powered television - the people of Finland will be ready for it, ahead of the curve.

Hmmm. Ahead of the curve on broadband technology, huh? Wouldn’t it be nice for the U.S. to be in that tech camp again? Maybe - just maybe - Finland is on to something with this legal right to broadband thing.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
146
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Finland's right to broadband: kind of like access to electricity, water
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Terrific submit ,I in essence appreciated with it, This genuinely is nice to endure and treasured for foreseeable upcoming,I clearly bookmark it, football jersey for even further a lot more look at. Many thanks for sharing. I like it.
Broadband is a luxury just like cable TV an dother things. It's not a right. We need to allow the free market system to compete and offer services. The competition is good and it drives further innovation. If we consider broadband a right, where does the insanity stop? How about new cars as a right?
@macdonalds

Broadband is a luxury just like cable TV an dother things. It's not a right.

Tell that to people in the US who live in more remote areas that have no option of broadband at all. They can't truly participate in the modern Internet because they don't fit into the business model of some company. Never mind that the company only exists because the laws of the land, enacted by the people through their elected representatives, ALLOW the company to exist in the first place. That's the real insanity.

It's time to make the rules work for the people.
@RationalGuy
Umm, it already does. There are these things called satellites and I've heard tell that there are companies such as Wild Blue and Hughes net that use them to offer, yes, broadband internet acess. Yes, it's more expensive and if you need to upload stuff it's a little slow, but then there is always a price to pay for a persons decisions.
@RationalGuy Yes, broadband is a luxury, but perhaps there is a compromise: A rural access subsidy such as for electricity and telephone. What worked for those "luxuries" that are now deemed necessities should also work for broadband.
@RationalGuy, @Starman35:
I guess since Walmart's a necessity that we should make it guaranteed to everyone, too. Free Walmart for everyone! Whee, no more need for hunger, lack of TV sets, or crappy printers! Yay!

I can't imagine internet becoming the necessity that electricity is. Furthermore, we don't even guarantee electricity. This leads me to believe that Starman's dead on. As it grows it will leak to rural areas and they will have access. They live in the middle of nowhere, and it takes a long time to lay cable to there.
@RationalGuy The people "allow" a company to operate?? I think not; where in the constitution is that? The truth is that broadband will be in rural areas eventually. Companies start extending their networks to the most populace areas for financial, common sense reasons. I remember when parts of my family that live in very rural KY did not have cable, then eventually they did. The same is true for broadband, there are still some areas that do not; but they will. To make it a right does two negative things, first it adds a right to our constitution that is not there and lastly it makes the "people" pay for "your choice" of where "you" want to live.
@RationalGuy

So they can't participate. I can't participate in the ballet, either.
The company only exists because of the creative efforts of entrepreneurs, not because of the fiat of legislators.
I have electric lights in my house because of Edison, not because of Obama.
@fwelsh
Have you ever used satellite internet? I have. It is spotty, unreliable, slow (yes, SLOW), and very expensive.
As for the "there is always a price to pay for a person's decisions," you are missing the point. Some people have no choice. It is either satellite, or dial-up... period. And if you're referring to the 'choice' of where they live, many people don't have much choice there either. Moving is expensive!
I think Finland is making a move in the right direction. The internet these days IS a utility. You can't really even find employment these days without a computer and internet connection. Even the lowest paying, crappy jobs are moving to online applications to reduce costs.

Quite frankly, the US is behind on many fronts. Especially in technology. Our internet connections here suck compared to most of the world, our cell service and devices are years behind, transportation is crap, energy provision is retarded. And the prices for most services are a good deal cheaper in Europe as well.
0 Votes
+ -
@RationalGuy

Now try living without it!
In a world where many businesses are taking more of their wares online; where many basic service providers (water, electricity, gas etc) here in Australia are going "paperless"; where teaching facilities are moving more of their study resources to a paperless format, we are hitting a point where not having access to broadband is a severe disadvantage.

In the U.S. it would seem that such an uneven plying field is seen as the acceptable norm. Thank goodness that an increasing number of countries disagree with that way of thinking. That being said, whilst your coutry continues to bicker over which Telco supports this or that phone; whilst your country squabbles over this service or that and outages here and there; other countries will have seen the need for national services that actually work and have done something about it.

Enjoy sitting in the IT dark-age... afraid we won't be joining you!
@RationalGuy True some of us and it's way more than people think are stuck with 28 k or less . @fwelsh I wish it was true
satellites need a clear view of the sky to work so if you live in a place where you have large trees that are not on your land forget it . Even the local company that has microwave service won't work because of the damm trees .
@MichaelWells

The people "allow" a company to operate?? I think not; where in the constitution is that?) are legal constructs. Corporate personhood? A legal fiction.

These are things that come into being because the law allows them to exist. The law is created by the people through their elected representatives. Therefore, the people allow companies to exist.

The laws governing the formation of business entities are state-by-state. Additionally, interstate commerce is regulated by federal law. That's in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
@RationalGuy I agree with everything that you just said, but where I respectfully disagree is in the area of the constitution. The laws you mention certainly do exist, but are they constitutional? The commerce clause was never intended to "regulate, tax, or impede business". The framers put the clause in there to insure that business would be able to run unimpeded and to assist in that goal. A brief reading of the what the founders wrote at the time and historical precedent will back that up. At that time it meant roads, and later railways and air travel to "aid" in commerce. The fact that these types of corporations that you mention exist, while true, is only being enacted by these businesses to avoid certain regulation, taxation, or other government infringement. I am sure that you will argue that the courts have found the commerce clause to be legal in what the government does, and many people will agree with you. I do not. The courts have for years either granted rights or taken away rights from it's citizens that are clearly unconstitutional. FDR, while not the first, helped to get the ball rolling by staying in office for 12 years to load the court with his justices. This was because the prior courts refused to allow the "New Deal" on constitutional grounds; apparently they knew the difference between "general" and "specific". FDR waited to get enough of his judges to redefine "general" to mean "specific" and thus opened the floodgate to almost all of the crazy spending that we have now. The courts have become the place for people to go to either grant rights that are not there (gay marriage, abortion, although Roe v Wade actually gives a non-existent right to privacy) or to take away right that are there (Guns, religion in the public square, right to property..see imminent domain). My main objection is not for economic reasons, although I do not wish to subsidize someone else's internet availability; that is just my personal opinion. My main objection is the continuation of the destruction of our constitution. If I wanted to live in a democracy I would move some where else. I enjoy the freedom that my country affords all of us, and while most of the bad law that has pervaded this country for the last 80 or so years has always been well intentioned; it has taken from one to give to another (judicially granted theft) and has hurt "all" of "our" rights by further moving away from the constitution.
@macdonalds AMEN the entitlement crap has got to stop. We are heading quickly to the few paying for the many!
@ItsTheBottomLine - If you like to eat, you need to have viable, profitable, sustainable rural areas growing food. Cities are lousy places to farm because there is no room!
In the real world, all utilities are subsidized, because universal (or near universal) access is an economic necessity. Access is guarenteed by making it a right.
Is broadband a utility?
Farmers (for example) are among the heaviest users of technology - GPS is becoming standard in tractors and combines because it makes good business sense, not because farmer's get lost easily. Fast, reliable internet access for everything from grain futures to the weather in Australia is no longer a luxury - current accurate information allows businesses to survive, and flourish.
Like it or not, subsidies for nearly every business have been an economic reality, in every society, since the beginning of time.
@ItsTheBottomLine
I'm amazed at some people. How long has broadband been in existence? How long should it take to get to rurals areas. It really is possible to be pompus and selfish at the same time.
@windozefreak - Normally I agree with your posts, however that sounds more like the liberal boohooing the Linux zealots put out "free for everyone" blah, blah blah (yes I use Linux as well). See the problem w/ rural is a specific need and maybe a valuable one, but that would be a minority of the people jumping on the "free lunch" bandwagon. We are heading fast towards a disaster of the few paying for the many. The current garbage in Washington has the attitude , "It's not fair they you have something and he doesn't". You can do anything you want to in this country , work for it and work hard. Just like the founders of this country did and the immigrants (LEGAL ONES!) do every single day. They work for a house, a car. That attitude lead to our current fiscal mess! I'm tired of paying for people that sit on the rumps and want hands out because it's no fair He has something and I don't Broadband is not a "right" , a house is not a "right" , a car is not a "right". These are things you earn and not given to and paid for by hard working people like me and I'm assuming you. So if that attitude is pompus then by God I will wear it like a badge of honor. Because I worked hard for what I have an to watch person who doesn't want to do anything and have the Gov't bail them out or hand it pure and simple BS. And based on the responses in this blog and the polls etc. I would say the Majority of the US citzens think the same way. Nov. should be wonderful - God willing. Oops I'm sorry I just insulted Oboo-boo.
0 Votes
+ -
ACCESS IS A RIGHT THOUGH!!
kaninelupus 5th Jul 2010
@ItsTheBottomLine

You are missing a point with all your chest puffing! We are NOT talking about giving away broadband connections for free. There is NO suggestion of making sure every citizen has broadband, without having to pay for it. It is about ensuring that EVERY citizen has ACCESS to broadband, should they choose/be able to pay for it!

Finland gets that; Australia is seriously working toward that... God, most of Europe gets it. Why is that the U.S is SO embroiled in the political Yah Hooing, that any kind of organised equalling of the field is viewed as some kind of move toward Communism? Seriously!?!
@ItsTheBottomLine You may be a little confused. First, nobody is claiming entitlement, only the opportunity to purchase a service, just like you do. Secondly, if you do a little research, you will find that the top 1% of money earners in the US pay about 90% of the taxes. I'm guessing that you are not in that 1% so somebody is already carrying the load for you. Third, IMHO it is pretty stupid for people who look at the situation we live in today as a nation (in the US) and think "gee, I wouldn't change a thing". It is only a selfish attitude that leads to that. You think everything is ok as-is as long as you are on the good end of it. If you weren't, then you would be screaming foul and want everyone else to change for you.

How exactly did you "work hard" for internet access? Wasn't the offer of service just brought to your door? All you do is pay for the service, you did no work to bring it to your house. You really need to lose the "me and they" attitude and start considering the "we" side of things.
0 Votes
+ -
@ItsTheBottomLine
So, you did not notice that it was the Finnish parliament making this valid for Finland ?
It was not set as a human right, but as a legal right IN Finland .
But then again Finland tends to go past the US in technology advancements . US started all this (internet/arpanet), but now it seems that strong forces are willing to sacrifice the lead that the US had for the perceived benefit of their own interests.

This is NOT about human rights; it is about the [lb] legal rights that is likely to promote the technical advantages that Finland already has a fair amount of (hint: Nokia is Finnish).
It's exactly this type of attitude that will have the rest of the world eventually eating our economic lunch. If the "great experiment" collapses, it will be by the hand of greed.
@DB_z
Say what??? Please educate yourself. The "great experiment" was the communist revolution in Russia. And it did collapse.
0 Votes
+ -
Greed?
SAStarling 2nd Jul 2010
@DB_z Wealth envy does not look good on you.
@macdonalds
...is incorrect, on several points.
First of all, a functional Internet connection is hardly a "luxury", and no, dial-up over a voice line does not count (for reasons that should be obvious).
Second, and more importantly, the delivery of broadband is nothing like a "free market". Actually, the whole "free market" thing is largely a myth, but that's another discussion. Broadband, for most of us, means what we can buy from our cable TV company or our local phone company (DSL). When you, as the consumer, are not free to choose from the offerings made on an open market place, it is most decidedly not "a free market". One and only one company owns the copper pairs, coax, or for the lucky few - fiber, that can connect us to the net. That's called a monopoly. A few of us can choose between the two, though even then, there is no real competition between the two. So macdonalds's argument is utterly false.
New cars? If you can afford it, you shop from an often dizzying selection of sources for the best deal and buy it. If you can't afford it, you buy what you can afford, from a marketplace that is, in it's openness, pretty much the antithesis of the broadband marketplace.
@jawn
Only one company owns each of those? Really? You're claiming that AT&T is the only DSL choice, Comcast is the only cable provider, and Verizon is the only fiber provider?
Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Saying only one company owns those lines is like claiming that Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs, anyway. I guess Ford should open all Mustangs for everyone. All Mustangs are public cars, right?

The car market is a giant monopoly. You don't get diving prices, you get constantly rising prices. There is no price war. The possibility of a price war is even what killed GM. To compete with themselves, they had to lower prices. Chevy would be upset if someone chose the G5 over the Cobalt.

The internet is already setup for what we can afford. Dial up is all but free. High speed internet from a phone company like AT&T is a WHOPPING $24/month. Plus, you get $100 back. Go check their site. The 1.5mbps is always that. The 768k connection is $20. Those are pretty darn cheap. But you have another option from THE SAME COMPANY: uVerse. Fiber for a lot of the country provided by AT&T and Microsoft. How much is that? $30 a month for the base TV+phone+internet. How is this difficult? At that point, you're paying $10 per month for high speed internet. I guess the government should provide this for everyone just because people are too stupid to go read the site?

free and open market have ALWAYS included the side that also believed in social Darwinism. If someone's too stupid to realize they have the ability to pay for internet and aren't, that's their problem.
@jawn
"functional Internet connection" != broadband.
@jawn @evilkillerwhale

jaun, i completely agree with you, killerwhale, Ford does have a monopoly on Mustangs, THEY MAKE THEM! They allow car companies to sell them, just like the owners of the cables on power lines rent out the lines to other companies, or the city that the power poles are in allow for another company to run wires. for the most part, every major utility has a monopoly just like the internet. for example, where I grw up, Comcast rules cable tv, National grid rules electricity and gas. Verizon tried running FiOS lines and Comcast complained and got it stopped. Is the internet a luxury? it depends on what you use it for. I don't have a phone or cable or TV at my place, I use the internet for all of those. I am also a computer programmer, so my livelyhood requires the connection the internet gives. E-mail is arguably as important as a normal mail address. So is the internet a utility? it depends on what you are using it for. I also play games over the internet. this is obviously not necessary for daily living. should internet be regulated like other utilities? well I think that utilities shouldn't be regulated like utilities, but that being said, if you read the article, multiple ISPs can provide internet to Finland, its just required that some ISP does it. It won't be a monopoly if there is more than one ISP, but if there isn't well, its the same with electricity and gas right? i like the idea of regulating the connection to the internet which is what Finland is doing. the lines should be run to all and it should be the government who owns them and rents out the bandwidth. This removes company greed and allows for multiple companies to offer the same service. I don't think the government should own the ISP, just like they don't own AT&T or National Grid.
@evilkillerbeachedwhale says...
Only one company owns each of those? Really? You're claiming that AT&T is the only DSL choice, Comcast is the only cable provider, and Verizon is the only fiber provider?
Yeah, that's ridiculous.


Really? Then how come I only have one company to choose from in my area? How come local monopolies and sweetheart deals exist for the very few?

Either you're in deep denial, or your the worst liar here on this thread.
@jawn
I think a fair amount of posters missed the fact that what they said in Finland was NOT that everyone must have FREE access.
Not at all.
They demand it should be ACCESSIBLE, but as with every other utility you PAY for it !
Other than that it seems that too many posters wholeheartedly WANTS the US to go towards the bottom of the scale when it comes to internet access. That makes me wonder: What do they have against the US and its population ? Are they secretly enemies of the entire US population ?
@jawn
That is the case for USA.
In Europe it is more common to cave a different set of rules.
It basically goes like this:
This is for ADSL :
One company owns the copper. O.K. They had a privilege of having that connection line. With that comes the obligation to lease at a reasonable rate competing company a DSL service over their
lines. That means that if you have A company that have phone-lines there, they are, by rules of competition, obligated to let a competitor to use the SAME lines.
That leads to a situation where on the same lines there may be 10 to 20 different ISPs.

That is normal in Europe , but is the US is is practically forbidden !
So it easy to see that competition is in plenty in Europe but in the USA (at the moment ) is rather monopolistic.
@macdonalds

I might agree with you, provided you understand that free markets and "unfettered" markets are very different things.
@macdonalds There is no competition among cable/broadband providers, it's a monopoly in every part of this country! Who are they competing against?
@jlentz@... this is untrue. I have my choice of cable, two options provided by my telco (DSL or fiber), or satellite. They all compete against each other. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere, but does in most decently sized cities/towns.

The problem with providing landline-based broadband to folks in rural areas is that, due to the sparse population, it costs more to run the lines than the company would recoup in many, many years. So, you are either a) asking that the company take a loss to provide you with broadband Internet access, or b) you are telling ME that I need to subsidize your broadband access.

Sorry, either way, it's wrong.
@jlentz@...
mono means 1
You just asked a question referring to multiple things. Let's see: Cable against DSL against Fiber. Competition is there.
@jlentz@... There is some competition in some areas, where cable providers and phone providers fight it out. But it is limited.
@jlentz@... Sorry not true here. Our cable company Insight is very much in competition with AT&T on several fronts. They are battling on prices and features. I don't know what part of the country you live in but in the midwest there is enough competition that I canceled DSL and went with Cable, and next year I may go back if AT&T get's the act together.
@evilbeachedwhale again says...
You just asked a question referring to multiple things. Let's see: Cable against DSL against Fiber. Competition is there.

How about cable against cable? Fiber against fiber? DSL against DSL?

Don't think for a minute that just because you have some kind of feeble competition in your area that everyone else does.
@macdonalds Well first of all, your analogy *should* be comparing broadband to the US Highway system, not the vehicles ("new cars") that are on it. Secondly, we already know that the free market is not to be relied upon to provide infrastructure, which is what roads and broadband are. Or did you forget the lessons of Enron already? Free market should set the price of shirts I buy from an Internet store but not the price of my means to get to the store. Understand?
0 Votes
+ -
Right to access, not right to free services
chaz.broam@... 4th Jul 2010
@macdonalds

You STILL PAY for your electricity, and your phone, AND your cable - DON"T YOU?!?! I am not saying they should be FREE services that people just GET, without paying any money what so ever. That is insane. Free loading is not what this whole topic is about.
What the subject of this news/blog is the right to ACCESS. In other words, The access is there for you, but you still have to pay for it. You still need to buy the hardware to use it. Having Internet Access to reach everybody will drive innovation, too. It will take innovation to reach all those rural areas. With the Government requiring Internet Access for all those places, Companies can then get their hands dirty, and get things done. The race to reach those new customers, will be it's own competition.
@macdonalds

Well, you do have a right to _purchase_ new cars. Why not also have the right to purchase Internet Access, too? You would still pay for it. It won't be given Gratis (free). You have an electric bill, do you not? You pay for a telephone. These things you all pay for.

Oh, wait a minute. I see your point now. You mean we shouldn't have electricity forced down our throats from the electric companies. Instead we should all get windmills and solar panels on our properties, and provide our own electricity to ourselves. You mean we shouldn't have a telephone service provided to us. Instead we should all go back to CB Radios. 'Breaker, Breaker, 19 - you got your ears on, good buddy?' Oh, and that cable or satellite dish is soooo luxury too. We should all go back and plow those fields, we get way too much entertainment anyways.

Where does the insanity stop?
0 Votes
+ -
Re; Where does the insanity stop?
hkommedal 4th Jul 2010
@chaz.broam@...
You should know that insanity does not have any stops.
@macdonalds Obviously, you have never dealt with new construction in a rural area. You have to pay for the electricity to be run. If it is at the road, this is $3,000-$10,000. If it is further away, is is $30,000/mile or more. Sure you can get it, but you pay for it, just like internet.

I live in the middle of nowhere, 16 miles from the nearest stop light, and 2 miles from pavement. I have broadband by fixed ground based wireless. It is common here. The free market has fixed it without subsidies.
0 Votes
+ -
RationalGuy
itpro_z 2nd Jul 2010
You may be rational, but are clueless as well. I live in a very rural and isolated area, and have several options for broadband. Besides the satellite options from Wild Blue and Hughes, there are also two private companies providing rooftop wireless in my area. One is the local REC (rural electric cooperative), who has also been considering adding power line internet to their system.

Are these offerings as fast as the cable or DSL that city dwellers enjoy? No. Are they more expensive? Of course they are. That is part of the price we pay for living out in the boonies. Everything out here costs more, including gasoline, food, and household goods. Should the government subsidize those as well?
0 Votes
+ -
Uhhhh, they already do. But then, information like that is hidden safely away in books.
0 Votes
+ -
By definition, nothing can be a "right"...
JohnMcGrew@... 2nd Jul 2010
...if providing it requires a an unwilling sacrifice on the part of someone else. I am not willing to become more of a slave to the government, just so that some "poor" person can now get online movies, social network, or play games.
@JohnMcGrew@... THANK YOU!!!
@JohnMcGrew@... It's so refreshing to see that not everyone has lost their appreciation for the differences between rights and privileges.
@JohnMcGrew@...
Finally, some reason.
0 Votes
+ -
Well said
SAStarling 2nd Jul 2010
@JohnMcGrew@....

Succinct and correct, as always.
0 Votes
+ -
This isn't about paying people's cable every month so they can play video games. You will still have to fork out your own personal expenses to pay for the service. The government will not pay that for you.

This is only about a right to access and have it available for those who don't. In case you didn't know, there was a time once back in the early 20th Century when the telephone was a luxury as well. Gee, I guess they shouldn't have run phone lines out in the middle of nowhere, either...

But then, I'd shouldn't expect anything less from a bunch of greedy, obese teabaggers & beached whales.
0 Votes
+ -
No idiot, you don't get the point.
JohnMcGrew@... 4th Jul 2010
Nobody is denied "access" to broadband. They are free to move to places where access is available.

And in case you don't know, there are still places in the middle of nowhere where you still can't get a phone line.

But then again, I shouldn't expect an insult-throwing progressive to understand anything about "rights". And who's really the "greedy" ones here? It's certainly not those who resent having their labor taken from them for the benefit of others.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Finland's right to broadband: kind of like access to electricity, water
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Terrific submit ,I in essence appreciated with it, This genuinely is nice to endure and treasured for foreseeable upcoming,I clearly bookmark it, football jersey for even further a lot more look at. Many thanks for sharing. I like it.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix