>Administration officials framed the move as an extension of Mr. de Blasio’s focus on inequality. Maya Wiley, counsel to the mayor, said low-income people, particularly blacks and Latinos, relied disproportionately on cellphone browsing to get online. And data charges can add up.
Free wi-fi is great and all but I feel that programs that mostly benefit the upper middle class are constantly being passed off by politicians as benefiting the lower class. From what I see, smart phones ownership definitely skews to the wealthy, although higher for African American and Hispanic [0]. Is there something I'm missing here?
It skews to the young: 83% for ages 18-29. That's a hard figure to ignore (although you HAVE to to make your point). Seems like for older people they own smartphones if they're in careers which might require one (e.g. office work, where college+ and $50K+ are more common).
For young people almost "everyone" owns a smartphone. Plus the cost is fairly low if you avoid the big four carriers and buy direct[0]. Smartphones aren't "premium" anymore and haven't been for quite a few years. Yet some people continue to talk about them like they are (and "HDTVs" and "cable").
High-end smartphone ownership for sure. But you can buy a craptacular Android phone that runs whatever Android 4.0 is and runs OK, just slow, for under $100. My understanding was that the smaller CPU and memory load of Android 5.0 Lollipop was partly a response to this trend. And of course you can get some sort of netbook for $200, $250. If you have the savvy to buy used (perhaps with the help of a friend) then your options get wider again.
Free wi-fi is great and all but I feel that programs that mostly benefit the upper middle class are constantly being passed off by politicians as benefiting the lower class. From what I see, smart phones ownership definitely skews to the wealthy, although higher for African American and Hispanic [0]. Is there something I'm missing here?
[0] http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-...