![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
When poor people put others in danger and/or exploit things for financial benefit, they go to prison.
Stop giving fines for big companies and actually start putting people in fucking prison.
When poor people put others in danger and/or exploit things for financial benefit, they go to prison.
Stop giving fines for big companies and actually start putting people in fucking prison.
Bring back the gestapo already.
You forgot the “/s”. Please, it’s important in these times.
This is going to be less effective and less popular than the prohibition of cannabis.
Same.
It seems as childish as toddlers having broken something by throwing it forcefully on the floor and then pretending that they don’t understand why the thing broke.
Afaik, high internet speed requires higher frequencies and high frequencies reach less far + have less penetration through/around obstacles. That’s what makes providing “4g” virtually everywhere easy (good enough for phone calls at least), but if they want to provide actual high speeds everywhere, then it suddenly becomes not so easy (nor cheap).
Why are you putting “4g” in quotes? It is 4g. Basic cellular networks cover the entire country, and using 4g speeds has been common for a long time. Hell, back when I was in the army, I had a laptop with a mobile connection. It was 3g back then, but it worked, even from the deepest of woods we were in.
The terrain of Finland probably makes this easier for us, as this is a rather flat country. We have literally no mountains. A few fells (=large hill, essentially) , but no mountains.
I wish I had a good answer, but I don’t, really.
Probably a combination of just providing a service and having good technology to do so and companies which want to sell said technology, I guess?
Everyone enjoys the internet. I might be assuming, but the sort of “if you want services, move to a city” sort of rhetoric that might exist somewhere in the US doesn’t really exist for us Finns. We understand wanting to live in the middle of the woods while still having access to basic services.
The Northern part is very sparsely populated, yeah (well not compared to some other places in the middle of huge states in the US but) something like two people per square kilometer, but rural living is pretty common throughout the country, so the whole country understands the need for them, perhaps?
Also, I think a lot of the towers are older towers for just 2g, going back from GSM to NMT, those towers always just being updated with newer technology, again perhaps? (I’m too lazy to research this now.) And the need to have just cellular networks to be able to call emergency services if you’re lost deep in the woods has always been a pretty high priority, I think?
The only places you maybe can’t get cell reception in Finland are some places in the middle of a few national parks in Lapland.
We Finns don’t have any of those pesky mountains.
~75% of the country is forest, so it’s kinda hard to not be in a forest.
Idk if they’re closely packed.
Coverage map.
Yeah since most people don’t live in the parts of the country no-one lives in, when looking at how many people are covered, it gets pretty good. And we didn’t take long to get 5g to a lot of people.
Here’s a coverage map from Elisa. https://elisa.fi/kuuluvuus/
Huh. TIL.
But these are sort of not that good indicators, because the US has huge population centers on the coasts, and nothing in the vast center.
I remind you that it’s the remaining 3% of the country, physically. It’s not 3% of the population. It’s just some places in Lapland which don’t have the greatest coverage. And the 97% figure is 4g, 3g has better coverage.
The Northern part of Finland is very sparsely populated and people like internet and cables are very labour-intensive compared to setting up mobile network towers.
But yeah, compared to the US, we’re not really that sizable. We’re like the size of Montana or so, and they’ve around a fifth of our population.
tldr Yeah, it is about the size, but also, with Nokia and so on, we’ve sort of quite a lot of good know-how on building wireless networks. We’re the most sparsely populated country in the EU, but I think there’s quite a lot of Spain where there’s much worse coverage.
Might I enquire as to where this remote location might be?
Like on a general basis, no need for addresses.
As a Finn I’m forever spoiled in terms of wireless coverage. We got tons of solitary forests. But you can get an internet connection in literally all of them.
97% of the country gets 4g. And not of the people. The country.
Where are all the Israeli apologists? The ones who argue that Israel isn’t as bad as the Nazis were?
Yeah 100 years ago it would’ve been “savages” or something else.
As in… why does this dynamic only apply to Finnland?
I don’t think I even implied it did.
Again, I congratulate the Finnish public on rejecting right-wing and authoritarian politics, especially after having to suffer under it at home.
If only
Guys.
Finn here.
42 % turnout.
We still have a massive problem with rising nationalism and general right-wing rhetoric, don’t kid yourselves. It’s just that those morons don’t think EU elections matter.
Well I don’t think we really have, honestly.
It’s just that the inbred racists who are all too common don’t think these elections mattered.
Yeah. 42% turnout.
Attack the argument, not the man, dum-dum.
Only to be CEO of a massive capitalist company.
I’ve heard a few tales of some CEO’s (of very small companies) here in the Nordics actually being generous to their employees. Like it’s most definitely a rarity, but I believe it is possible.
Like a CEO who values profits but values employees and paying their fair share more and isn’t blinded by greed and addicted to money. A socialist, literally. A market socialist, but a socialist nonetheless.
Everyone could have their basic needs met, and we could still have rich people. Just not filthy rich, not “rich-to-the-point-no-one-else-has-anything” rich.