131–140 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
Are you part of HMG or was it at telco level ?
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.
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…
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…
> 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, ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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…
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/
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.