To quote something from a favorite fiction-series, where someone is visiting a relatively backwards planet:
> "Poor?" said Cordelia, bewildered. "No electricity? How can it be on the comm network?"
> "It's not, of course," answered Vorkosigan.
> "Then how can anybody get their schooling?"
> "They don't."
> Cordelia stared. "I don't understand. How do they get their jobs?"
> "A few escape to the Service. The rest prey on each other, mostly." Vorkosigan regarded her face uneasily. "Have you no poverty on Beta Colony?"
> "Poverty? Well, some people have more money than others, of course, but... no comconsoles?"
> Vorkosigan was diverted from his interrogation. "Is not owning a comconsole the lowest standard of living you can imagine?" he said in wonder.
> "It's the first article in the constitution. 'Access to information shall not be abridged.' "
-- Shards of Honor (1986) by Lois McMaster Bujold
To turn to other, much older publications... The US Constitution was written ~230 year ago, when the state of the art was carrying letters by horse, and it explicitly authorized making a public service to provide it scale, which became the US Postal Service.
If the same ideals and priorities had been applied against today's technology, we'd have the US Networking Service. Certainly not a deluxe ISP (even today USPS exists alongside other package companies and couriers) but an affordable baseline available to all residents.
I’ve always thought it a travesty that USPS doesn’t provide a public email service
I guess it's also available today via RFC 1149
And pgp certificate signing
I completely agree with this sentiment. Good luck getting anything like that locked, sadly.
I just read this book a week ago. Cannot recommend it highly enough. Bujold has excellent prose. A joy to read.
malka older's "infomocracy" is another interesting science fiction look at universal access to information
Crazy, I've never heard of such a plan anywhere. But given how essential the internet is to everything we do on a daily basis, that makes a lot of sense. However, I would like to see the existing situation that lead to this decision. Were there many people who couldn't do things anymore due to lacking internet access? Was there public pressure to do this or did they just think it a good idea?
My assumption so far was that there are those who use the internet, they're usually fine, and those that don't - they won't benefit much. But no idea about South Korea. Anyway, cheaper and unlimited access is always a good idea!
At the height of the pandemic, the UK mandated zero-rating data for mobile connection to .gov.uk and .NHS.uk domains, along with several other charitable sites.
(I was part of the team working on that proposal.)
This is... Shockingly reasonable. Would be perfect if it included other essential services e.g. domains used for online banking.
It’s technically problematic. The ISP should have little idea of domains you visit. And they can’t already when everything works.
Do you have heared of IP addresses and that large institutions especially government institutions have their own blocks from the address space? Mapping these is kind of easy.
They are likely behind (foreign) CDN's.
Not that there's no BYOIP and not that it's impossible to do with shared IP's
Plenty of ISPs zero rate things like Facebook and other "partners". Especially easy when they control the DNS.
Are you part of HMG or was it at telco level ?
I was part of HMG. It was a joint effort with the telcos - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mobile-networks-remove-da...
Oh nice. I am surprised how many HMG colleagues I bump into on HN :)
meanwhile Czechia literally BANNED free Wi-Fi in restaurants and other establishments during COVID, so people will spend there less time, I understood the rationale if people already didn't have mobile data in phones anyway
other things Czech gov banned during COVID-19 was singing in public places, no kidding!
And I'm not even going to complain they banned sale of the toys, colored pencils and other items so people will spend less time in the shop, so me and kids could just look at the colored pencils behind the tape because we had to go to shop anyway.
During COVID in Singapore, music in restaurants was banned, as people may talk more loudly to compensate.
> other things Czech gov banned during COVID-19 was singing in public places, no kidding!
So, wait, no Christmas carolling? Was this the doing of Babis? Then only the drunk shall sing in public places, mainly because they're too drunk to care.
"Church services are limited to a maximum of 100 people, and singing is prohibited; the same applies to public participation in municipal and regional government meetings."
"In other regions, the operation of schools and educational facilities is being restricted in accordance with the Education Act, and that of universities in accordance with the Higher Education Act, such that singing is not part of the curriculum; furthermore, with the exception of the first stage of primary education in elementary schools, sports activities will also be temporarily excluded from the curriculum."
https://vlada.gov.cz/cz/media-centrum/aktualne/vlada-vyhlasi...
Umm, was it more than an oppportunistic attack at net neurality?
UK has never had net neutrality, there are many limited data phone plans that include unlimited music/video etc
The UK does have net neutrality, and it's quite strictly regulated by Ofcom, which produces an annual report showing compliance and highlighting any issues it has investigated:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/internet-based-services/network-neu...
Things like restrictions on tethering and using a SIM in a router are forbidden.
Unlike most countries, net neutrality has never been a political football in the UK.
Ofcom groups zero rating schemes into three types:
Type one - government and NGO services (always allowed).
Type two - where categories of service (e.g. video or music streaming apps) are zero rated, but any service fitting into the category can apply to be zero rated by the network.
Type three - any other kind of zero rating.
Things like the VOXI Unlimited Social Media packages fit into Type Two, so are expressly permitted.
For the rest, Ofcom assessed the impact on consumers, which is generally low.
This is not net neutrality, all network traffic is not treated equally.
Ofcom seems to have invented their own definition of net neutrality and placed it on that website, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. This is tiered access.
It doesn't meet a perfect theoretical definition of net neutrality, but it's a set of defined legal limits on the extent to which providers can treat different kinds of traffic differently.
Net neutrality is not theoretical, it is literally the default setting.
Any deviation from that default requires special effort be taken to identify network traffic and treat it differently, and as soon as you have made that effort you cannot truthfully claim to have net neutrality. The UK does not prohibit net neutrality but it does not require it either (according to the comment I replied to which I have not verified).
I guess to me this seems a bit like saying that free markets are the default setting. We’re not in some kind of perfect state of nature. We’re in a complex interconnected society where virtually everything of any importance is regulated to some extent. What you’re saying seems like saying “as soon as you impose one regulation you no longer have a free market”.
This non sequitur strains my ability to assume good faith on your part. We're not talking about markets, we're talking about a utility.
Does your water company bill you differently depending on what you use the water for? Your gas company? Electric? This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.
It’s just an analogy. I can understand if you don’t think the analogy lands, but it hardly seems grounds for doubting good faith.
And err, yes, not everyone is billed for water or electricity on the same terms as private homes.
>This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.
You could leave this out? It’s not the most effective way to bring people round to your point of view.
Ok but the main limit people care about is music and video streaming being treated differently
What would be the model of a country with stronger net neutrality laws? I think EU regulations are now a touch stronger than UK regulations due to post-Brexit divergence, but by world standards, the UK has strong net neutrality protections.
The important issue of net neutrality is not so much zero rating as degradation or blocking of content and services.
The OSA has forced the reverse: sites have to be non neutral as to where their traffic is going.
Crazy even to me, a Korean. I just woke up and saw this news on HN. Over the years I watched the price of data was going down drastically in Korea. I had always complained that data in France was much cheaper like 30gb for 10 eur. Then when I came back after around the end of pandemic, the price of data in Korea was actually quite cheap.
Do I know why? No idea. The article alluded fast AI adoption but even senior Korean citizens are all addicted to youtube videos. Soon they will start using AI. Young people are already heavily using AI for everything. So I don’t think it’s for AI adoption.
The recent hacking incidence was a big one, true. But the price had been going down even before.
Even in the US which is well behind SK in the digital curve, I’ve heard anecdotally that a huge problem with reintegrating some populations like the homeless, poor or elderly is that job applications are virtually all online now.
This, and owning a bank account, filing taxes, paying bills are all moving to internet only.
Some coffee shops in china you can't even order or pay without their app.
Canada requires mobile service providers to have a 35$ a month data plan, and the low-income support payments will add 35$ a month to the base rate if you provide a cell phone bill.
TIL, it's not a perfect solution but given how rough telecoms are here it's at least something I guess.
Perhaps there is something more fundamentally wrong here if the government subsidizes privatized infrastructure that is making billions in profit? In the early days of private radio stations governments required all kinds of things to the public's benefit from them, the reasoning was the inherently limited medium of the airways, how quaint.
> But given how essential the internet is to everything we do on a daily basis, that makes a lot of sense.
Well, water is certainly more essential, yet it isn't free.
Food isn't free. Shelter isn't free.
Besides, the services you'd use over this free connection aren't (necessarily) free.
Its not unreasonable to suspect some other agenda, like easier propaganda, subsidising of social media, ...
Actually food water and shelter are free to those who can't afford it in many developed countries.
Oi! Fair. I didn't want to imply that access to water, shelter and food was less important. Not at all! It's crazy that we have more than enough for everybody and still people die from hunger, thirst, conditions. I was only trying to say that any effort in the right direction is appreciated. You are correct in pointing out other motives though. That's what I asked myself as well.
Maybe the reduction in gov paper forms printing and processing, offset the mobile costs.
I often hear the argument of savings in printing and postage.
Having seen all the over budget, years delayed or completely failed IT projects in the public sector, I wonder whether there are any savings at all in the end.
(Perspective from a couple of EU countries at different degrees of digitalization)
Switzerland is doing that quite a while now.
https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/landline-subscription...
Maybe not general data cap exemption but for as long as I remember a lot of carriers in Europe whitelist certain apps that people think of as "essential" that work even when you've reached your data limit - such as WhatsApp and Messenger. Perhaps there are certain applications specific to South Korea that people think as essential/universal and expect them to work without a data plan (even maybe related to the digital ID thing they have there).
Here in Spain a few years ago some ISP's just put a data cap about 2.7KBPS (2-3G?) and call it a day. Enough for text sites, messages and the like. But if you were smart (mosh, NNTP)... you could connect to some public Unix servers and fire up Lynx/Links at crazy speeds under a Tmux window and be able to read sites/blog posts and the like. And with edbrowse, even comment on some simple JS sites.
With some cachés set for my audio player I could even listen to some odd Avant Gardé radio streams -think Frank Zappa like- at http://dir.xiph.org with 16 KBPS quality in OPUS format. Not totally robotic, it sounded better than old MP3's at 32KBPS.
But to really reach the poor people, you would also need to deploy phones, not only data/traffic/WiFi: For sure for lot of people 10-20 USD monthly bill is already too high, but buying a phone that is somehow not outdated and capable of running all the apps needed, this is a much higher barrier (of lets say 200-300 USD for a somehow solid phone that will last some time9
> of lets say 200-300 USD for a somehow solid phone
More like 30-50 USD, judging by the research I did in 5 minutes (or 20-30 USD if you agree to a used phone).
No, I understand that Americans love to pay several times more for their houses, healthcare, education, coffee and everything else simply on principle, pretending that there are no other options, but you can literally google the largest phone manufacturers in the world and look at the prices of their current starter models.
And yes, we are talking about full-fledged smartphones that are quite pleasant to use, with up-to-date hardware and the latest versions of the operating system. Not some outdated torture devices with zero reliability.
> google the largest phone manufacturers in the world and look at the prices of their current starter models.
for most people at the very low end of low income and low education group, this is a huge barrier.
Look: I haven been neighbours with people who had to search their whole appartment for a working simple pen to take a note - when asking for it they looked at me like an Alien: Really poor and uneducated people have high barriers in even the simpelst things.
Nobody is saying that the price of the phone isn't a barrier. What people are trying to tell you is that there's no need to lie about that price. If anything, using the real price makes it even more illustrative of how much being poor sucks!
Sure, phone choices in America are very limited compared to most of the world. But just go to walmart.com, seach for prepaid android and choose "New" condition. You'll see mainly entry level Motorola and Samsung offerings ranging from 40 to 200.
> for a working simple pen to take a note
Well, I guess this means that they have successfully solved their smartphone availability problem. Otherwise, note taking tasks with a pen would be more important for them.
There's also just an absolutely bonkers number of functional second hand devices out there. A lot of them make their way to Africa as phones people use (and the Chinese repair and refurbishmenr business is huge and a volume business).
There are charities which will also give away phones because for a homeless person a usable phone is quite valuable because it makes it possible to do things like apply for jobs, find services etc. (even if you're just surfing cafe wifi).
I am using an 8 year old phone that was mid when I bought it for ~$300 or so new. It's only in the last year that I've begun to find it annoyingly slow. Now I prefer using an actual computer for most things and only rely on the phone for messaging and maps when I'm out and about (plus some lightweight web browsing) but my point is that mediocre actually works fine. I have hardly any apps on it, if there isn't a web interface I don't need to interact with it.
Phones can be had for a lot less than that - you can find decent enough used phones that will last a year or two for under $100, which is cheap enough that almost everyone can scrounge together the money for it.
I’m guessing you’ve never been poor. For people living in poverty, finding $100 for a one time purchase is extremely difficult - much more than say finding $10 per month. Finance options are notoriously predatory and expensive. Plus if it only lasts a year then the amortized cost is about the same as the hypothetical cheap service.
By “under $100”, I meant that there are options at $20. Yes, you can get a smartphone for twenty bucks.
I agree that there are some people who can’t even find $20 to get a smartphone, but they’re going to be a small minority of even the very poor.
Thanks! Exactly, this is what I was trying to tell: Its the barrier of accumulating the "once a time payment" in that volume, because methods for savings are not applied (for several reasons, unregular income, too low income, debt, drugs etc.)
A weird part about the modern world is that a cell phone is incredibly cheap compared to shelter, food, or just about anything else. You’d be surprised how many homeless folks have phones.
In SF, I commonly see homeless people with cell phones
California provides free phones and phone service to those who qualify through the California Lifeline program
That may say more about needs than affordability.
It's clearly affordable if it can be afforded. Otherwise nothing is affordable.
What I mean is that there are different needs and constraints on different users. Some homeless folks need a smartphone more than, say, retirees.
It also affects what would normally be considered "inferior goods" in economics. If someone is camp-in-the-bushes homeless, they can't really "save money" by having an old laptop instead. Being able to carry it with you is more of a requirement than a convenience.
There are many such schemes for low income households in the united states to subsidize internet access for students. There were some federal and other programs.
Probably LTE is cheaper to deploy then actually wiring a house up anyway.
I work with a US non-profit that has provided both free and very low cost Internet access over the last 4 years (fixed home wifi, no phone). We have primarily used 4G/5G, including private networks built and owned by the non-profit, public/private partnerships with cities that own a 4G network, and now primarily very low cost wifi hotspots serviced by a major carrier.
The federal plans still exist, and the wires are already there in most homes, so most providers offer a tiny plan to fit the subsidy.
> Were there many people who couldn't do things anymore due to lacking internet access?
Almost anythijg now requires internet access. Banking, schools, parking, transport tickets, almost any form of communication with almost any organization (besides phone, but some companies don't even have phone numbers anymore) etc.
>I've never heard of such a plan anywhere.
In 2011 Poland 2600MHz LTE band was auctioned off with the condition winning bidderwould offer free 512Kbit mobile internet called 'Bezpłatny Dostęp do Internetu' aka BDI (translates free access to internet) for 3 years, amount of time it should take them to build full country coverage.
... except they failed to build the network deciding to concentrate on most profitable cities instead. National regulating body UKE (Office of Electronic Communications) didnt like that one bit and first expanded free period to 2016, and then in 2016 made extension indefinite until mandated 50% coverage is reached + 3 years. This happened in 2021 forcing them to provide it all the way to 2024.
TLDR 2011-2024 free government mandated mobile 512Kbit internet.
Funnily enough Aero2 - company in question decided it was a good business after all and is still offering "free unlimited" trier, in quotes because you have to renew it every 12 months paying ~$1.5 https://aero2.pl/zasady-dzialania/
> the scheme will provide over seven million subscribers with unlimited downloads at just 400 kbps after their data allowances expire.
Does this mean it’s not a universal entitlement as such, because you presumably first have to pay for a plan with an allowance? (Not to mention having to pay for a device).
Yes it does, but you probably need a bit of context.
They already have free Wi-Fi in every bus stop, train stations, government buildings, etc. like clocks, thermometers, air quality sensors, etc. The free Wi-Fi is very high quality, where you can watch 4K videos without stutters in most places (1080p for other places).
This is more about basics instead of luxurious/entertainment purposes, where if they run out of data on their contracts, the companies must provide data, albeit slow, still, where government provided Wi-Fi can't reach. 400 kbps is good enough for AI text streams, so it's a policy blend for their recently trending slew of AI policies.
I should also mention that it's a compromise from the telecom companies for recent incidents.
>The free Wi-Fi is very high quality,
Haven't been to SK in recent years, but assuming quality as it is Fast, how does the log in system work?
My main problem is not speed with modern public WiFi, especially in recent years enterprise WiFI 6 and coming WiFi 7 have gotten much better with signals and receptions. But simply just to use it.
It is at least 3 - 5 steps to have it log in. And the login only works 95% of the time.
Do we have something where a single click of a button and within 100ms we are in? Or even better without even doing anything? I have yet to seen one in real world.
Here in SK it’s actually pretty straightforward. Places like subways, buses/bus stops either use secured WPA/WPA2/WPA3 Wi-Fi with a shared password or open Wi-Fi where you just tap once to connect.
In most countries you can either sign up for contracts with regular data allowance, or buy pay-as-you go phones which require topups.
It sounds like if you bought a pay-as-you-go sim card in Korea that it would immediately give you the slower unlimited connection without needing to pay for allowance first.
I think despite needing money, it can still be considered a right, IDs cost money but you have the right to have them, and I'm pretty sure it means it could extend to government paying for it eventually (depending on your social class I guess).
Something being a right does not mean that it will be provided for you. It simply means the government will not infringe on that.
The provided rights are called positive rights, and the not infringe rights are called negative rights. Freedom of speech is a negative right and a right to legal counsel is a positive right.
Thanks, yes I didn't really think about that distinction. I would say that "positive rights" is a fairly modern concept, for example the right to legal counsel was not originally a positive right, that was something that was determined by a series of court decisions in the mid-20th century. Most rights are still in the "negative" sense, i.e. things that cannot be prohibited or limited, or only narrowly so.
But in this case, a "right" to mobile data is just an entitlement that the people/governemnt decided to provide. The article isn't loading for me but I'm assuming this was not a constitutional change establishing this new specific right.
> I would say that "positive rights" is a fairly modern concept
Not really. “To no one will we sell, deny, or delay right or justice” in the Magna Carta has long been interpreted as much a positive right requiring the Crown to actually provide for justice rather than just a negative law to refrain from abusing it. There's also several clauses requiing royal justices to hold assizes in the counties and set procedures for hearing disputes which is a duty to maintain legal machinery. Heirs, widows, and wards were promised specific legal treatment, such as a widow’s immediate right to her marriage portion and inheritance, and limits on abuse by (non-state) guardians which are affirmative entitlements within feudal law.
Even Rome had the grain dole (the bread of “bread and circuses”).
Ah, so it's like the right to own jewelry (historically, there have been places where only nobility could legal own and wear it): you have the right to buy them, no one would stop you or take them away from you, but you still need enough money to buy it.
I imagine the same applies to the rights to live, to have access to water, and to receive medicine help (which is IIRC is why the Soviets claimed they refused to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: they argued for their version of the declaration that would actually bind the stated to make sure those goods/rights are actually universally provided; incidentally — and it's one of the examples they've actually used — that would mean that e.g. printing political leaflets for distribution, falling under free speech and political distribution, would also have to be paid for by someone. As you may imagine, most of the other countries weren't particularly fond of the idea that they'd end up themselves financing the printing and distribution of Communist propaganda).
The USA has affordable broadband schemes (I think current setup the gov pays $9.25/mo towards your connection) and IIRC pretty much every broadband provider has a plan at exactly this cost to provide the minimum legal definition of "broadband".
You mean the USA had affordable broadband:
"The Affordable Connectivity Program stopped accepting new consumer applications and enrollments on February 7, 2024....On January 11, 2024, due to a lack of additional funding from Congress" [1]
I think SK did the right thing. Access to information is important even at 400kbps which is pretty darn fast considering some people grew up running 56kbps and never complained.
That was before websites were 40MB or more of garbage though so keep that in perspective. Also broadband here is supposedly 100mbps and giving more people access should drive cheaper Internet but also being America we have ISP monopoly by choice per city so I'm not sure any of the economics pans out.
> That was before websites were 40MB or more of garbage though so keep that in perspective.
Video is really where you feel sub-megabit connections limiting (youtube and social media). Sites not so much. But yes, it's a problem.
It still has Lifeline, which isn't as good, but it gets you some of the way there, some of the time.
Imagine how wonderful it’d be if the US had fiber to the home that would trickle at 1-10mb/s even with no subscription- but you could subscribe with any provider for more.
Ah, the dream.
Kinda surprising so many in the thread have no clue the US has the lifeline program and there's a few providers that will sell 'free' basic lines. It even became a meme when Obama was president: https://www.wikihow.com/Get-an-Obama-Phone
yeah 400 kbps is almost the easy part. you still need a line, a handset, and apps that still run on the cheapest phone around. hard to call that universal in practice.
they gave you a slow lane on their network, whether you can get onto their network is your issue. Phones aren't particularly expensive, I bought mine used for $60 and I've found plenty of working smartphones literally on the curbs. Should they buy you a car and a house too?
this does not come across that impressive beyond the surface. however, given the market inefficiencies (see Twitch saga over double charging of bandwidth [1]) despite having some of the fastest and (relatively) affordable internet has always made it an interesting case study.
throttled speed beyond cap is something i've grown up seeing since the ADSL days, but mandating it across the handful of providers can perhaps help with the odd Line text or two.
This would be huge for IoT. It'll obviously be abused to send "metrics" (a.k.a. private data to be sold) by companies, but still. I hope there's no limit on SIM cards.
> unlimited downloads at just 400 kbps after their data allowances expire
This is not new. Many Korean mobile plans actually offer even higher unlimited throttled speeds (up to 10 Mbps!)
- You can filter plans by the unlimited throttled speed on this site. The plans are usually titled by `{data amount} + {throttled speed}`: https://www.moyoplan.com/plans
- Even if not throttled, I think data overage charges were capped at about $13 (20K KRW)
So perhaps unlimited 400 kbps will become standard: i.e. no plans will ever charge data overage fees?
---
The linked statement didn't seem to specifically mention the 400 kbps thing at all.
I think rather than spending money on this, it would be better to put it toward UBI instead. Give people money and let them decide where to spend it. Setting aside the questions of freedom and tax allocation, "universal basic mobile data" in my view clearly has quite a lot of room for power rent-seeking.
This comment is every policy discussion. I like [X POLICY] but [Y POLICY] would be miles better. Although [Y POLICY] is much further reaching and has never been tried at anything like the scale of a country, it's sort of similar to [Z POLICY] - which was tried for 2 years.
I'd perfectly live with a forever free connection with about 16/32 KBPS. It can do lots of stuff in text mode. Not for video or big files, but enough to fill some pages.
That would mean accesible web pages, and forget about JS based captchas and the like.
It'd be great if this moves developers to consider optimizing for lower-end connections.
One the one hand, yes. On the other hand, it's unreasonable to have to wait 5 minutes to download a 1 MB government PDF form. I guess they too can be optimised so they aren't all that bad, but they often aren't. What can't be optimised is having to upload an image of that form with a signature on it, or whatever else it may be.
Seems nice but is actually a terrible move. It's another step towards the presumption that everyone should have a smartphone.
That's like saying that using tax dollars to pay for roads assumes that everyone has a car.
MOST people do use things like government/taxpayer funded roads, public transportation, water, healthcare, etc that are considered as basic necessities.
As far as everyone needing a smartphone, or e-mail address, that ship has already sailed. Here in the US, try using "Parkmobile" without a mobile phone.
> That's like saying that using tax dollars to pay for roads assumes that everyone has a car.
Well once the government subsidizes roads they proliferate it and becomes more difficult to exist without a car. Your example supports my argument.
>try using "Parkmobile" without a mobile phone.
I would never, ever try using "parkmobile"
My city's public parking lots, garages, and street parking use Parkmobile to collect payment, and AFAICT that kind of arrangement is not terribly unusual. I suppose anti-parkmobile drivers could stick to the few overpriced privately-owned lots in town, though.
If you're saying that you don't drive, then congrats, and I hope to catch up to you soon.
That's a good call. They had a databreach[1]—and paid out 4x 25 cent in-app credits to the affected people.
They are hard to avoid. Where I live in northern NJ the on street parking is all Parkmobile. At the Jersey shore where I go the beach parking lot is Parkmobile. Just got back from Tampa - more on-street Parkmobile (ditto Clearwater & Sand Key, incl. town-owned public beach access lot).
No doubt you can avoid it if you really want to, but they seem to be everywhere.
Your argument would make more sense if the vast majority of the species didn’t already have a smartphone.
Parkmobile lets you call their customer service number to pay for parking, so (assuming that process actually works) you would indeed need a mobile phone, but not a smartphone.
> Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Science and ICT Bae Kyunghoon said the scheme is needed because citizens can’t do without access to online services
So indeed it actually is intended to make online services necessary.
> That's like saying that using tax dollars to pay for roads assumes that everyone has a car.
Not really. Roads carry goods, and they carry emergency vehicles. Pretty universal.
> that ship has already sailed
"Tell me what you eat and I'll tell you what you are."
Anyways, if you actually just say, "I don't have a smartphone" you'll be surprised at how accommodating the world remains.
> try using "Parkmobile" without a mobile phone
Okay:
https://support.parkmobile.io/hc/en-us/articles/368547636077...
Was that supposed to be impossible?
Where in that link are instructions provided for someone to use it without a mobile phone? I see instructions for calling, but that still requires a mobile phone (or if we're being generous, a street with a payphone nearby).
I feel like you are applying a US specific/ western lense to this. In East Asian countries they’ve built lots of infrastructure around that presumption already and are committed to it.
Communication access is a universal need and does not necessarily require smartphone usage. The US has had universal access programs since at least the mid 80s
Everyone should have a smartphone, just not necessarily a closed down and enshittified one.
This is actually a really great idea. There should also be universal terminals that people can access on public places or so, even without having a smartphone ready.
Now here in Germany we'll wait for decades for this to happen. For some reason Merz gave up on Germany.
Part of me is all for this but I also get the knee jerk reaction of ‘if something is free, you’re the product’
What’s in this for the for profit companies? wouldn’t this cannibalize sales to the demographics that would be buying a cheap prepaid plan if it doesn’t already exist?
Maybe i live less chronically online (but still on my phone) than most, but having spent a few weeks in Japan. I’ll assume prices are similar due to localities, similar-enough cultures and densities. My partner and I shared a 3gb SIM and wifi tethering because of the pricing and lack of need for on demand data (we download movies to our devices when on a high speed networks). I would be fine on 400kpbs while away from hotels and public wifi, and I imagine many tourists will be in the same boat, killing a lucrative segment of the market.
Every country should do that.
brazil and india had these since 2012.
brazil was .25/24h of internet at top (4g) speeds then. which is like $7/mo max. until the gov elected with a steven banon campaign dropped the mandatory plan.
the plan was a punishment for companies not maintaining payphones after getting the spectrum monopoly, which was a requirement on the auction.
As a Finn this data allowance is pretty funny to me (though of course not unknown). Here most subscriptions are unlimited.