upvote
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.)

reply
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.

reply
During COVID in Singapore, music in restaurants was banned, as people may talk more loudly to compensate.
reply
> 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.

reply
This is... Shockingly reasonable. Would be perfect if it included other essential services e.g. domains used for online banking.
reply
It’s technically problematic. The ISP should have little idea of domains you visit. And they can’t already when everything works.
reply
Umm, was it more than an oppportunistic attack at net neurality?
reply
UK has never had net neutrality, there are many limited data phone plans that include unlimited music/video etc
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
Net neutrality is not theoretical, it is literally the default setting.

Any deviation from that default requires special effort be taken to identify network traffic and treat it differently, and as soon as you have made that effort you cannot truthfully claim to have net neutrality. The UK does not prohibit net neutrality but it does not require it either (according to the comment I replied to which I have not verified).

reply
Ok but the main limit people care about is music and video streaming being treated differently
reply
What would be the model of a country with stronger net neutrality laws? I think EU regulations are now a touch stronger than UK regulations due to post-Brexit divergence, but by world standards, the UK has strong net neutrality protections.
reply
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.
reply
> 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, ...

reply
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.
reply
TIL, it's not a perfect solution but given how rough telecoms are here it's at least something I guess.
reply
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).
reply
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.

reply
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
reply
> 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.

reply
deleted
reply
> 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.

reply
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.

reply
> 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.

reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.)
reply
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.
reply
In SF, I commonly see homeless people with cell phones
reply
That may say more about needs than affordability.
reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
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.
reply
> 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.

reply