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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 $10 per month. Finance options are notoriously predatory and expensive. Plus if it only lasts a year then the amortized cost is about the same as the hypothetical cheap service.
Thanks! Exactly, this is what I was trying to tell: Its the barrier of accumulating the "once a time payment" in that volume, because methods for savings are not applied (for several reasons, unregular income, too low income, debt, drugs etc.)
In SF, I commonly see homeless people with cell phones
That may say more about needs than affordability.
A weird part about the modern world is that a cell phone is incredibly cheap compared to shelter, food, or just about anything else. You’d be surprised how many homeless folks have phones.
Canada requires mobile service providers to have a 35$ 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.
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.
> 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.
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 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.
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"
That's a good call. They had a databreach[1]—and paid out 4x 25 cent in-app credits to the affected people.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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'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.
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.