upvote
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.

reply
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.

reply
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).
reply
Something being a right does not mean that it will be provided for you. It simply means the government will not infringe on that.
reply
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

reply
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.

reply
> 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”).

reply
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).

reply
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".
reply
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.

1. https://www.fcc.gov/affordable-connectivity-program

reply
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.
reply
> 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.

reply
It still has Lifeline, which isn't as good, but it gets you some of the way there, some of the time.
reply
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.

reply
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
reply
deleted
reply
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.
reply
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?
reply