Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Invests In Broadband For Poorer Countries

Posted by Soulskill on Wed Sep 10, 2008 07:12 AM
from the first-one's-free dept.
Chris Wilson writes "According to the Financial Times, Google has announced their support for a new initiative called O3B to 'bring internet access to 3bn people in Africa and other emerging markets by launching at least 16 satellites to bring its services to the unconnected' by 2010. Coverage is available from Yahoo and the Wall Street Journal as well. 'The $750m project to connect mobile masts in a swath of countries within 45 degrees of the equator to fast broadband networks ... could bring the cost of bandwidth in such markets down by 95 per cent.' This will probably be the largest single investment in network infrastructure for developing countries in history. Google clearly wishes to use this project to enable broadband Internet access in developing regions, but many other things must be in place before that can happen, including fixed power infrastructure, PCs or OLPCs, technical support and skills, and useful content and services for areas with lower literacy."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • This will probably be the largest single investment in network infrastructure for developing countries in history. Google clearly wishes to use this project to enable broadband Internet access in developing regions...

    Ok. Let's get a few things straight here. Phrases like "will probably" and "clearly wishes" are indicative of slant because they don't tell me anything. Let me tell you what's clear here: Google is making an upfront investment to reach 3 billion new customers. Yes, it's great news for those people but I will spell out the only motive Google has--they do not want another homegrown Baidu [slashdot.org] popping up in Swahili or any other language. They will reach these people first and hand them Google in their native language.

    Google's going to bring these people broadband at 95% of their current price and Google's going to make massive profit. In 2007, Google netted $4.2 billion. They are supporting O3B because it is a smart business move and their stock will go up because of it.

    I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's great for the people but Google's only motive is "How do we reach the other 1/2 of the world's population with our services?"

    • Google is making an upfront investment to reach 3 billion new customers.

      Not 3bn new customers - 6bn new products. Google will sell these eyeballs to advertisers.

      *shrug* not too bad a deal methinks.

      • Google will sell these eyeballs to advertisers.

        6 billion eyeballs... I'm pretty sure there's a Nigerian guy who'll sell them to you for a lot cheaper than the cost of launching a single satellite.

        • Yes, but he'll want you to send him 5,000 eyeballs and your adsense account info first.

    • by locster (1140121) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:28AM (#24945013)

      If google make profit by helping African economies develop and taking a slice of the subsequent pie then I say good luck to 'em.

      • The oil companies have been doing this for ages. Only the help is less and the slice is larger.

      • You sir, need to be modded up. There is nothing wrong when capitalistic gains coincide with the greater good. It is really sad that most businesses do not take this approach. Sure, if you wanted Google to make them selves out to be fscktards and say "We are going to expand our market by increasing broadband penetration in 3rd world countries, so that we may better exploit the advertising dollar."(I never can figure out if you need an extra period, or if you should just omit the period inside the quotes). Bu

    • by Alwin Henseler (640539) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:39AM (#24945099) Homepage

      Google's going to bring these people broadband at 95% of their current price

      Ehmm... TFA talks about "bring the cost of bandwidth in such markets down by 95 per cent". Doesn't that mean: take 95% off, leave 5% (1/20 th) of previous cost?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      If money would be the real driver behind this deal, then Google accountants are not as smart as I thought they are. Developing nations will not be able to use the internet for quite a while due to already mentioned reasons: Illiteracy rate is high, many countries don't have stable and enough electricity let alone the number of PCs to use the inet effectively. And they won't care for them either, since their main problem to solve will remain to get enough food so they won't starve. It definitely is a nice mo
      • Even most of the small elite that COULD use the internet right now, will not have enough disposable income to make them a good target for advertisement. If this is an investment, it sure is a very longterm one. Kudos to google for doing it anyhow.

      • by the_womble (580291) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @08:15AM (#24945443) Homepage Journal

        Illiteracy rate is high, many countries don't have stable and enough electricity let alone the number of PCs to use the inet effectively.

        I live in a third world country, well within the area this will cover. Most people are literate, most households have electricity, you can buy a second hand PC in any town for a few tens of dollars (and about a quarter of the population have bought mobile phones, which start at similar prices). Even as it is, broadband is available in cities and is perfectly commercially viable.

        Yes there are a lot of people who cannot benefit from this, but there are also a lot who can.

        Take a look at the number of cars on the road in the third world. Anyone who can afford a car, can easily afford a cheap computer and internet connection. Anyone who can afford a motorbike can probably afford it!

        You seem to think that people either live at first world standards, or on the edge of starvation. Most of the world's population is somewhere in between.

      • by mtairhead (1341037) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @08:35AM (#24945631)
        Of course, you're wrong. Besides the fact that there are plenty of people who can read and afford computers, you make no mention of the #1 driver for economic and improvement: business!

        Why plop down a warehouse or plant in a nation with no dependable way of communicating with it? Access to the Internet will attract business, which will create jobs and bring an influx of money.

        Further, PCs aren't the only things that can benefit humanity with access to the Internet. You're thinking inside the box. Developing nations have solved many problems without our confined 1st World ideas. I don't believe you need to sit an Tanzanian in front of Wikipedia to call the Inet an African success story. Creative uses will come from uncommon and unexpected corners, just as they always have. This is just one more tool, and one from which Google /will/ profit.

        PS - Once you're in the position to call $3 billion dollar shots like these, I don't call you an accountant anymore. You're management.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Let's hope they don't play bait and switch with this like they did with Meraki. [wikipedia.org]
    • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @08:23AM (#24945515) Journal

      I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's great for the people but Google's only motive is "How do we reach the other 1/2 of the world's population with our services?"

      Only motive ? How about saying they found a way to do humanitarian actions while improving their profits ? I really admire such actions. They take risks, they bet on the fact that helping the world can be a profitable thing when done right. I wish we see more of these.

    • by TapeCutter (624760) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @09:10AM (#24946071) Journal
      "Let's get a few things straight here. Phrases like "will probably" and "clearly wishes" are indicative of slant because they don't tell me anything."

      Making a profit is NOT evil. This will probably be news to you even though you clearly wish not to hear it. The fact that they also clearly wish to make a profit will probably be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, in no way does that change the meaning of the quote even though you clearly wish it did.

      Your own anti-corporate slant is breathtaking, god forbid anyone make a profit from doing something that just might, in it's own small way, assist in dragging 1/2 the planet out of the stone age.
  • by BitterOldGUy (1330491) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:19AM (#24944943)
    In a developing country? You're kidding right?

    That's where all tech support departments are these days.

  • Triple Play (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Food, water and broadband.

    For only $99/month*, you could provide a child with Facebook and MySpace.

    (*) For the first year of service. Offer void where prohibited by law. Not really. Please see a doctor if broadband persists for more than four hours.

  • I desperately need new recruits willing to read and type in CAPTCHAs for 20 hours and 3 cents per day.

    Thank you, Google!
  • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:26AM (#24944993)

    Will being able to communicate easily give people more ambition or will they hit 4chan first and decide that the rest of the world is a pit of evil that has to be avoided at all cost...

    • Things I anticipate doing once these 3 billion people are hooked up:

      -Send the first goatse link
      -Be the first to solicit cybersex
      -and ask "a/s/l?"
      -Degenerate various African languages into their equivalents of "AOLspeak."
      -Accuse them of being teenage boys unless they "show pics"
      -ATTN: Dear Sir/M, I am Mr. Johnathan Ashcroft. an Auditor of a BANK OF THE WASHINGTON, DC. (FCT). I have the courage to Crave indulgence for this important business believing that you will never let me down either now or in
  • by Chemisor (97276) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:28AM (#24945021) Journal

    I'm still waiting for broadband here in the US. That last mile is a killer...

    • My 26.4 kbps (that's right, not quite 28.8 modem speeds) connection is right here in the good old USA. And I am a network administrator for a hospital who needs to remote in some nights that I'm on the beeper. That's rather painful at 3,000 bytes per second. My community would benefit from my having better remote control of the hospital.

      But, hey, why not spend a few billion to get an African peasant farmer a 1 Meg connection?

      • My 26.4 kbps (that's right, not quite 28.8 modem speeds) connection is right here in the good old USA.

        Then why not protest and try to have this improved? If all you do is pay your bill and mutter on slashdot, they'll keep you on your current rate.

      • Stop whining and get a satellite connection. More than 50% of existing satellite Internet connections are in the 'developed world'. When this new satellite service is installed, you, too can benefit (you see, the satellites go all the way around the world) and they'll be happy to sell your ISP a connection.
  • Sounds like someone decided on the name based on a conversation with accounting? "How much money would we have to dump into this to get into the African market?" "Oh... 3 Billion, at least!"
  • clarifying (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mapkinase (958129) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:31AM (#24945041) Homepage Journal

    "but many other things must be in place before that can happen"

    Sure. But satellites would be probably the most costly and the most steep step.

  • THHGTTG (Score:5, Informative)

    by goose-incarnated (1145029) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:33AM (#24945053) Homepage Journal
    Marketing is great, innit?

    "They cannot afford our product, so lets artificially accelerate their development until such point that they can, and then sell them out product"

    Not that I, paying ZAR70 per gig for internet access, mind at all. Hell, bring it on - those monopolistic providers here in Africa, please, by all means, hand their asses to them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I was thinking that too. And if at some point the whole world becomes too poor to afford google at all, the googleplex will be put into suspended animation until the world can afford it again...

  • .. so now the Indian tech support companies that everyone have outsourced to can themselves outsource to some new African companies.

  • by segfault7375 (135849) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:38AM (#24945085)
    *sigh* How much food and HIV care/prevention can you get for $750m? Priorities people! But then again there's no money to be made in that I suppose :(
    • Hopefully it will bring some education, which is good for the long term. We can't really expect an advertising company to give away food and drugs.

      Google.org [google.org] does the charity stuff.

    • by MarkKnopfler (472229) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:59AM (#24945247)

      Bad observation. Hackneyed observation. Disease and violence are symptoms. They are not the cause. The underlying cause is an underdevloped, impoverished economy and the lack of human-resource. Treat the causes by developing the economy and educating the people. Treating the symptoms never help. Although broadband access is not the silver bullet, but it is the the variety of change that would be desired.

      • Now you'll get thousand of myspace-sites spreading that "cure".

        just hope that someone will herd those people to the real information sites.

      • Meh. With all the misinformation on the net, I doubt it will make much of a dent in it.

        The only way I see it really making any sort of measurable difference is because people will be too busy dicking around on the net that they won't be banging as often for the sake of something to do.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        the big problem in the 3rd world is a lack of access to information about consequences... when a population thinks you cure HIV by having sex with a virgin...

        Suddenly I am reminded of the slogan of an awful website reading "The internet makes you stupid".

        Case in point: I have a few family members who recently have begun using the internet. With all of this wealth of information at their fingertips, they have chosen to disregard it and use it as a medium to forward each other jokes usually involving half naked women that somehow ended up in powerpoint presentations.

        What surprises me is that I'll often be asked simple technical questions like "The clock on my lapt

  • by vkg (158234) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:53AM (#24945193) Homepage

    and they could actuarially revolutionize life in the developing world.

    Take all the data from the satellite, crunch it through Precision Agriculture systems to generate recommendations for crop care (and even crop selection), and then distribute the results over the broadband network, along with things like video tutorials for farming techniques.

    Boing Boing has a post on the basics of precision agriculture here: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/09/agroveillance-using.html [boingboing.net]

    http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/hexayurt/supercomputer-applications-for-the-developing-world-375 [howtolivewiki.com]

    Was an approach to doing this based on repurposing military imagery.

    Really could change the world in a big way, food security for all.

  • suitable for people with low literacy?

    Rule #34.. there's already porn of it .-)

  • by GregPK (991973) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @09:07AM (#24946021)

    They could use it, sure.

    However, countries in Africa could really use a 4 billion dollar investment into Concentrated solar power.

    4 billion is all that it would take to make the necessary power for the entire continent out of sun power, mirrors, and liquid salt and some high power lines.

    Once you get past the corruption anyways.

    • by locster (1140121) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:24AM (#24944969)

      45 degrees either side of the equator is a pretty wide 'belt'.

    • Even with those caveats such a system might be more usable for those within the coverage zone than many current US broadband providers' connections are.
      • by somersault (912633) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:43AM (#24945123) Homepage Journal

        Useful for streaming and downloading large files perhaps, but probably a bit of a PITA if you want to do something like online gaming or some quick web browsing, because satellites=high latency. Not saying it's a bad thing though, it's a good start :)

        Someone above made a comment about this just being about advertising and google's business - well sure it will benefit them in the long run, but in the short term they're not going to make much advertising money from countries who can't even afford the infrastructure in the first place. I think this is most definitely a Good thing to do, whatever the motives. People who are always trying to make out like Google are actually evil need to get a grip. Businesses exist to make a profit, but Google also is conducting business in such a way as to benefit computer users in general. Think of the large limits on GMail inboxes forcing Hotmail to provide a similar service (my inbox space jumped from 200MB to 2GB), and Google Docs creating competition for Office, etc. I still think Google is a very 'good' company as companies go.

    • 16 satellites in LEO, meaning intermittent coverage, plus they will need spares and steerable ground antennas.

      They're going to use the satellites for long haul & 3g masts for last mile.

      and it seems pretty expensive for covering only a belt around the equator.

      45 degrees is half way to the north/south poles.

    • So...16 satellites in LEO, meaning intermittent coverage, plus they will need spares and steerable ground antennas. I'd like to see an article with all the technical details, but it doesn't sound practical for providing continuous high bandwidth links...and it seems pretty expensive for covering only a belt around the equator.

      There's been a fair amount of progress in planning the positions of constellations of LEO satellites to provide continuous coverage, or at least very close to continuous, see the following paper:

      Williams, Edwin, William Crossley and Thomas Lang, "Average and maximum revisit time trade studies for satellite constellations using a multiobjective genetic algorithm", Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 49, 3, 385-400, 2001

    • If you had RTFS (I know I'm being pedantic), you would have discovered that they only need 5 satellites to cover the earth. The rest are for redundancy and to increase bandwidth. They also state that this is much cheaper to install than fiber. Latency goes down to 100ms with the LEO.
    • Maybe you should call Google and tell them. You seem to know much more than the engineers that have been thinking about this.
    • that money be better spend feeding the poor or even building up basic infrastructure like schools and wells

      Most places that will be using this sort of commercial service have adequate food/water/power/education infrastructures.

      Most that don't have such infrastructure have a problem that google can't solve. War - of one kind or another.

    • Re:wouldnt (Score:4, Insightful)

      by somersault (912633) on Wednesday September 10 2008, @07:48AM (#24945155) Homepage Journal

      There are already people doing that. Educating people to boost their skill levels and economies would enable them to buy their own food and learn to dig their own wells.. I know I'd rather be self sufficient than live on hand-outs all the time (though I admit it's pretty easy to say that when I'm nowhere near starving or destitute)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Return on Investment

        MS hands out free copies of Windows to schools, get the kids use to Windows at an early age so when they grow up they buy legit copies.

        Google puts a satelite in orbit to give broadband access to a new market, who do you think gets the ad revenue when hundres of millions of people gain access to the internet courtesy of Google?

        My litmus test is this, if you replace Google with Microsoft in the story, how does it sound?