> 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).
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".
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.
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).
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).
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.)
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).
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
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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).
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".
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.
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).
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).
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.)
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Seems nice but is actually a terrible move. It's another step towards the presumption that everyone should have a smartphone.