21–30 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.)
Umm, was it more than an oppportunistic attack at net neurality?
That would mean accesible web pages, and forget about JS based captchas and the like.
> 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).
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…
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 digita…
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
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 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
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 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
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.