Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

comparedial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–136 of 136 posts

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#131

Post by peebeebee »

vel0city wrote: post #120
frakkingcylons wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a physical presence is a competitive advantage. It's the reason some people stick with Chase or their local credit union in lieu of someone else who is online-only with a higher interest rate. Perhaps in a while most banks will decide it's just not worth the expense anymore, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

I've never even been inside a brach of any bank I actually bank at. I've been in a bank to actually do banking like twice in my life, both times to get large bill withdrawals for in person cash vehicle purchases. And I'd just prefer there to be ATMs near me that support bills larger than 20s, why wait until the bank opens and stand in line. I truly don't understand why a regular person would bother going in to a bank…

That's why accessibility needs to be constantly advocated.

We should never design services only for the needs of the majority. There are lots of people with all kinds of disabilities -mental and physical- that we need to cater for.

That's what makes our society a better, more loving society.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#132

Post by peebeebee »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #91
frakkingcylons wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a physical presence is a competitive advantage. It's the reason some people stick with Chase or their local credit union in lieu of someone else who is online-only with a higher interest rate. Perhaps in a while most banks will decide it's just not worth the expense anymore, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

HSBC experience in a smaller UK city - the staff in branch have to call the same phone number as one would call from home. They do have some ability to authorise actions, but barely. Perhaps they checked ID, I don't recall. The company line is "you don't need to visit the branch ever" which is strange as they keep having to ask us to do things at the branch. There's no counter service, no business staff, nothing exce…

That's ok. It's eating your own dogfood, and also "being there" for people that really need it. Much better than a robotmenu on a phone. :)

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#133

Post by kcartlidge »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #129
Vinnl wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's been fairly clear that people don't limit themselves to OS's that are still supported, and if you remove that condition from your question, I think the answer would be "yes".

> I think the answer would be "yes". Hardly. Good luck running non-supported OS’s on iOS devices. So all of the old iphones and ipads are out. Even on Android only a tiny statistically irrelevant proportion would both with this.

I suspect the mention of OSs that are still supported implied they weren't talking about non-supported but no longer supported OSs. So nothing exotic, just the normal OS on the device but stuck at the old version which was the final one released for it.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#134

Post by fragmede »

kube-system wrote: post #14
fragmede wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lesser known Obama phone program got devices to 20 million Americans in order to facilitate digital interaction. https://www.obamaphone.com/

What you're talking about is the Lifeline program, which was established in 1985 and expanded to include cell phones under the Bush administration. The changes took effect later during the Obama administration, and so it got the nickname "Obama phone" by some. But he didn't have anything to do with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeline_(FCC_program) What you've linked is some unaffiliated site, the official webs…

TIL, thank you!

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#135

Post by walthamstow »

arp242 wrote: post #114
walthamstow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology illiteracy, absenting a learning difficulty or other mental condition, should be inexcusable in 2034 and we should not force the state or businesses to cope with it. Part of me thinks it's inexcusable now for people under a certain age. If you're 70 today in a developed country, you've had the internet for 20 years and a smartphone for at least 10. That's plenty of time.

I think people should be able to live without internet, if that's what they choose. Just as people can live without a TV. There's tons of reasons why someone might not have internet (permanently or temporarily) ranging from financials to personal choice. And it's not about "illiteracy" as far as I'm concerned, it's about wanting to talk to an actual human being, which is becoming harder and harder. My bank card doesn…

> I think people should be able to live without internet, if that's what they choose. Just as people can live without a TV.

Would you pass a law to force businesses to maintain a level of service that must include people without internet? It will have to be a law I'm afraid, if left to the profit motive alone then companies will not include these people, as we are seeing happen.

Also, I wouldn't liken living without internet to being without a TV, obviously I understand why you would say that, but when it comes to living in a modern society I'd say it's more like living without pen & paper or a postal service.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#136

Post by arp242 »

walthamstow wrote: post #135
arp242 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people should be able to live without internet, if that's what they choose. Just as people can live without a TV. There's tons of reasons why someone might not have internet (permanently or temporarily) ranging from financials to personal choice. And it's not about "illiteracy" as far as I'm concerned, it's about wanting to talk to an actual human being, which is becoming harder and harder. My bank card doesn…

> I think people should be able to live without internet, if that's what they choose. Just as people can live without a TV. Would you pass a law to force businesses to maintain a level of service that must include people without internet? It will have to be a law I'm afraid, if left to the profit motive alone then companies will not include these people, as we are seeing happen. Also, I wouldn't liken living without…

The only business that you need is a bank. They're subject to all sorts of special regulations already including the inability to refuse customers for a basic account in some countries. Other exceptions are things like the post office and such.

Special laws for a regular businesses isn't needed.

Post reply on HN