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