abenamer writes "Some reporter at a recent White House press briefing just asked the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this question: Was 'the White House....considering beaming broad capability into Iran via satellite so the opposition forces would be able to communicate with themselves and the outside world?' 'Gibbs said he didn't know such a thing was possible. (Is it?) But he said he would check on the technological feasibility and get back with an answer.' I'm not sure what the reporter meant by beaming broadband into Iran: Do they even have 3G? Would we bomb the Iranians with SIM cards that would allow them to get text messages from the VOA? Or somehow put up massive Wi-Fi transmitters from Iraq and beam it into Iran? How would you beam broadband into Iran?"
I loved Jon Stewart's comments last night. They played a montage of clips of pundits talking about how America is going to be perceived by the world based on what we do with Iran, what's America going to say, how's America going to promote the cause of the protesters, and so on -- who which he responded something to the effect of, "Because, of course, what's going on over there is all about us!"
It's not about us. It's about Iran. It's their election and their struggle for democracy. The biggest complaint held almost universally by Iranians is that we've meddled in their affairs for too damn long -- propping up the Shah, funding Iraq in a war against them, sponsoring MEK, and so forth. The last thing they want is the US government yet again trying to tell them how their society is to be run. That's a perfect recipe for the US to be a foil to the hardliners. Nothing will rally conservative forces in Iran more than the belief that the US is supporting a coup against them yet again.
On the other hand, support from *individual Americans*, that's completely different.
On the other hand, support from *individual Americans*, that's completely different.
Is this like support from *individual Mormons* in the Proposition 8 campaign, because I don't think that kind of support will go down well with the Iranians either.
It was in reference to criticism that the US government wasn't doing enough to help or encourage the protesters overturn the election and/or government.
I don't. The more we interfere here, the more likely it is that someone new is going to form a grudge against us. Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference? If the protests in Iran escalate to a civil war, then we need to stay the hell out of it. If we don't, how are we going to respond if the revolt loses and the Iranian government accuses us of encouraging violence and discord in their country? Do we really have to wonder why the Iranian government thinks we're a bunch of bullies?
Exactly right. The U.S. and Britain started this whole fiasco in 1953 by meddling in Iran's affairs and overthrowing Mohammed Mosaddeq [wikipedia.org] in Operation AJAX [wikipedia.org]. They installed the Shah, a ruthless dictator with a security apparatus as bad or worse than the current Iran Regime, SAVAK [wikipedia.org]. The Iranian people hated the Shah so much they turned to the Islamists in the 1978/1979 Iranian revolution to overthrew him, and replaced the devil they knew with the devil they have now. Mossaddeq nationalized British run oil fields in Iran and the U.S. and Britain over thew him to regain control of the oil. It was one of the early and most vivid proofs that yes in fact the U.S. and Britain will do just about anything to control oil fields including coups and wars. All things considered if Mossaddeq had been left in power Iranian would have been a lot better and happier place.
Anyone with the slightest sense of history realizes the U.S. and Britain need to stay completely out of this because their involvement will just give the current regime a potent propaganda tool to say the protests are a western imperialist instigated counter revolution to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. Its bad enough things like Twitter and Facebook are U.S. based.
No, Operation AJAX, is a well documented CIA operation to overthrow the government of Iran in 1953. I included the Wikipedia link which you apparently didn't read. It was initiated by American and British intelligence agencies when Mossadeq nationalized British oil fields in Iran. In a recent speech by Obama, maybe the one in Cairo, he for the first time officially acknowledged that the U.S. overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. The "loyal factions of the Iranian Military" you cite were lead by General Fazlollah Zahedi who was working with/for the CIA who were running the coup.
"were the Q'oran thumping whackjobs who opposed or replaced him any better"
I never said or implied any such thing. The Islamists who overthrew the Shah are just as bad if not worse. Only difference is one is pro western and the other is Islamic so the repression has a different flavor. The Basij and Revolutionary Guards are just as bad if not worse than SAVAK. The one redeeming quality of the Islamic revolution, in the eyes of Iranian nationalists, is they aren't stooges of the American government, the Shah was. A lot of Iranians still hate America for putting the Shah in power.
You should read the link I put in my original article on Mohammed Mosaddeq [wikipedia.org]. He was a secular Socialist, not an Islamist, moderate, very popular, and I'm sure women would have faired as well or better under his government than the Shah. The fatal mistake he made is he screwed British oil companies, by taking back control of Iran's oil fields, and you didn't screw with British and American oil companies in the 1950's.
The point I was making which was apparently completely lost on you is both the Shah, and the current Islamic regime are terrible. The best chance Iran had for a good government was Mossadeq. He probably wasn't perfect but the U.S. and Britian overthrew him, deprived Iran of a chance at a moderate regime and plunged Iran in to 56 years of brutal authoritarian rule which continues today, half under the Shah and half under the current Islamic Regime.
The U.S. did the same thing all over the world throughout the 20tj century and is still doing it today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the U.S. consistently abused its power to install one repressive dictator after another as long at they were:
A. pro business and let U.S. companies profitably exploit their resources whether they be oil or bananas (the U.S. installing dictators in Central America to protect the plantations of United Fruit is where the term Banana Republic comes from.
B. anti worker and labor union because places like United Fruit wanted their labor as cheap and exploitable as possible, which meant crushing unions
Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference?
Because in the history of revolting THAT IS WHAT HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED, there has never been a revolt in the world where outside backers haven't cast there lot with one or another faction like that. So any thought of Iran revolting and America not being involved, because of good feelings and such, is just hopeful fantasy. Iran suffering a revolt and America is tacitly condemning the Iranian crackdown because the revolt is not likely to succeed and Obama has already made moves to reconcile with the ruling Islamic government. The only reason to even lodge a complaint against Iran was to put pressure on them, to make them uncomfortable, but unless the govt. shows signs of toppling America will not move in Iran. If America does move we won't even know what side America will back, they could just as easily support the ailing regime in exchange for their unending debt and gratitude...
A more important question is why we would "beam broadband" (no doubt many slashdotters recoiled at this phrase, but we get the gist of it I suppose) to the opposition forces. Is there any evidence that broadband will help these people out against the government? They could just as easily use word of mouth and secret meetings, no doubt they already do. Unless this whole revolt started on the back of websites and mass emailings...
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT is why you care about Iran in the first place. Tajikistan Turkmenistan Azerbijian and Uzbekistan (check your map all close neighbors of Iran) haven't had free elections in god knows how long. Look up Turkmenbashy! We don't care about these countries beating and torturing opposition supporters. These countries play ball, they are part of the great Caspian pipeline and the same police forces that torture electorates, torture terrorists/anarchists/democrats/republicans/monarchists who try and blow up the pipeline. The only reason human rights are brought up in the news/politics is because the West (sometimes the East) wants to gain something. Go look up the news for Tamil Tigers and War Crimes trials, Europe and the US want the Sri Lankan govt. to be punished, whilst China Russia and India don't: it certainly isn't because of a disagreement about who are the victims. Giving a shit about Human Rights abuses in Iran is hypocritical and foolish. In fact, giving a shit about human rights abuses at all is hypocritical and foolish...
So please stop reading your newspapers/blogs/slashdotinternationalnews and answering for dribble like "How can we beam happy sunshine into Iran". Have some self-respect.
I don't think offering national wifi would be too much of a problem as far as our image is concerned. We could bill it as being humanitarian, e.g. to help the red cross volunteers that are undoubtably already there.
The point is moot however. Satellite wifi is only 1 way...Hand held devices don't have the transmission power to hit an orbital target. The only way we could set up some kind of wireless broadband would be with big honkin towers, serving local nodes, etc, and that ain't happening. And if we sent basically a 1-way "information" broadcast, we would (rightly) be accused of interference.
Moral of the story: those we help will not always repay us with kindness.
Especially when the reason we helped them had absolutely zilch to do with altruism or genuine interest in their welfare or in the principles of democracy or anything high-minded, and instead had everything to do with our own self interest with complete disregard for how things turned out for them provided we got what we wanted.
We didn't really 'help' them. We 'used' them as pawns in our game of chess with the USSR. We didn't give a shit about what happened to them.
We fought a Communist dictatorship which, for all its brutality, built housing with electricity, phones and running water, roads, a health care system, and (most significantly) an educational system which was quite good and educated women, who had significant equality. They were allied to the Soviet Union, a country that was trying to develop better relations with the U.S. (and did under Gorbachev).
We replaced the Communists with gangs of illiterate Mujahadin and then Taliban warlords who were even more brutal than the Communists, who cut the country up into feudal feifs, destroyed everything and built nothing, who drove out Doctors Without Borders (after 30 years), and whose idea of education was having boys (not girls) read the Koran which they then interpret to mean "Anything we want it to mean." They were allied with lunatics like Osama bin Ladin who used all our training against the Soviets to attack us, and with the Pakistani islamists.
Our support for the Mujahadeen against the Soviets was in our interest only in the mind of an unrepentant lunatic cold warrior.
If the Russians would help us today in Afghanistan, we would be overjoyed (because it would mean fewer dead Americans).
If we had left them alone, Afghanistan would have been in more competent hands, with a secular or non-sectarian society, with more freedom than they have today, and with less of a threat to the U.S. than they are today.
I see plenty of good reasons. But just having a good reason isn't enough to do something. We have limited resources. There are many oppressed nations around the world. How about instead of rushing to interfere with Iran, we simply stop supporting the oppressive regimes we prop up first?
Getting a signal TO them is easy. You just have to set up a source with sufficient power. Satellite, ground, shortwave, whatever. I think it would be feasible (I'm not radio guru) to beam them FM from space or Iraq. Basiclly you'd be breaking all the transmit power limits to further your cause.
The problem with networking is they don't have any devices powerful enough to beam the return signal BACK to us. Sure, we can broadcast them a packet 1000 miles away, but their hardware only has the power to return it 1 mile back... Yeah, you can tweak the sensitivity of your receiving equip, but not enough for this. And the idea of cells is that you are counting on a signal only reaching a certain distance, so you can reuse that frequency in another location. Even if they all put 100,000 watt amplifiers on their wifi cards, on our end it's just jumbled garbage.
By the time we got any hardware to them to let them communicate with us, this revolution will be over... R&D, Procurement, Distribution...
Does whoever asked that question know absolutely nothing about how "beaming" works? We could easily transmit more or less whatever we like down; but that won't magically turn Iranian cell phones or wifi devices into satellite modems. You'd need to substantially change, and upgrade, the hardware that they are using for any sort of communication to be established.
And, if the plan is to provide large quantities of Officially Discouraged Hardware to all and sundry, we might as well just mix rifles in with the phones and call it a day.
Does whoever asked that question know absolutely nothing about how "beaming" works?
Yep. They also know nothing about routers, packets, fiber or anything that would explain how those videos get from YouTube to their iphones. My wife tells me that most people are living in a world where all sorts of neat stuff happens magically, and when it stops happening the only real solution is to call some company (or, if they're lucky, a sufficiently tech-savvy friend) that can make that magic start working again.
I've worked in telecoms for a looong time now, on the technical side (embedded SW). If my Comcast service stops working, and is still not working after the usual sanity checks (restart Firefox, ping google, reset modem and router, etc.), I, uh, call Comcast. What, you want me to break out a 'scope or packet analyzer? Want me to pop the top on their green box out by the curb? Hack into their Cisco box at the head end? No, thanks -- it's *their* debugging problem, not mine!:)
There already are various Satellite Providers that offer Internet Connectivity also in Iran, just try to:google it [google.com]. I'm pretty sure the US Army already has it's own satellite ISP that works in Iraq, which means it also works in Iran, they'd just have to be so generous to let the Iranis use it, they don't really need special equipment for this, they can buy satellite capable phones in Iran, they just need the access to the US army networks, or commercial networks. Just give them some access to satellite providers, then they can set up their own networks on site if they're the least bit organized, otherwise it's no use anyway.
Wifi from Irak isn't really possible, It would work around the borders, but that's all, Iran is a pretty big country, it's meaningless, satellite is the only option, either that or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers [wikipedia.org] .
The world has been clamoring for you guys to stop meddling in their affairs and only mind your own. So I suggest that you should do just that: it will cost you nothing and you won't generate any further ill will towards you. What's not to like? Maybe people will change their mind or maybe they won't, either way you'll be covered.
There are too many people in the U.S. and UK who are WAY too into meddling in this fight. This is something the Iranians have to do or not do on their own. Nothing good can come of western meddling in this case. It will only give the Ahmadinejad regime an excuse to crack down on the dissenters as western-sponsored traitors. Even in the best case scenarios, the people we help will likely only resent us for it in the end (since it will taint their movement with the possibility that it was just some CIA sponsored coup, instead of a legitimate grass roots movement).
The best thing the west can do right now is to stay out of it and stfu.
There are two possible technologies (among other similar ones)
With DVB-S2/RCS you have a bidirectional satellite system that requires a 1.2 meter dish antenna and a satellite terminal composed of an indoor unit (about the size of a bulky cable-modem) and an outdoor unit (transmitter and receiver horn mounted on the focus point of the satellite dish. This costs around US$1000 dollars and it takes about 30min to install (if you are an experienced installer).
With BGAN you have a very portable terminal (about the size of a netbook) that only requires you to point it in the general vicinity of the satellite location in the horizon.
Both systems use GEO (geostationary) satellites, which means that they have a fixed location in the horizon. They are actually located over the equator (0Â latitude) and they orbit the earth in 24h cycles, thus appearing to be stationary.
With DVB-S2/RCS you can have a 50Mbit/s in the downlink, although most services provide less than 10Mbit/s. The usually upload speed is 1Mbit/s. This speeds are shared between all terminals within a beam (similar to Internet over cable, where you share your Internet within a residential area of about 1000 persons).
With BGAN you only have 492Kbit/s in both the downlink and uplink. On the other hand, it is designed for mobility.
My first thought when I read this article was BGAN, since they were throwing around the 'Broadband' term so much. BGAN stands for Broadband Global Area Network.
The downside of all of these systems (besides getting the hardware into the country) is that the airtime is fairly expensive. BGAN runs you about $3.50/Megabyte, and it's cheap for satellite data.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 23, @12:24PM (#28441387)
The Tor project has taken it upon themselves to help out the resistance in Iran. They have instructions to setup Iran only Tor bridges to provide secure/anonymous internet access to and from Iran.
Too bad the press isn't paying attention to the (very successful) efforts by the Tor project in helping out the people of Iran get communications in and out of Iran. No need for the White House to do anything, the good folks and volunteers at Tor are taking care of it in a much more practical way.
Also, whoever wrote this article/said that comment has no idea about physics and technology. Some of the comments here talking about how unbelievably implausible "beaming broadband" into Iran is are very funny.
You can't just throw internet into a country.... not in any practical way anyways, especially from a satellite without proper ground equipment.
The US is currently sending out satellite TV news in Persian 24 hours a day. [ibb.gov] It's on Telstar 12; the eastern edge of coverage is near the Iran-Pakistan border, and the whole EU is covered. Someone please take a look and see what they're sending. The IBB doesn't seem to have the transponder number, symbol rate, or frequency on their site, which is lame.
Where there any revolutions recorded in history before the internet existed? Sorry if this seems like a dumb question. Maybe someone is doing their thesis on it or something.
Could we beam broadband internet into Iran? Yes. Could they send anything back? No.
However, everyone assumes that we 'should' be doing this and helping the revolution so they can experience 'freedom'.
For one thing, this isn't a popular uprising. It's taking place in a liberal city and is mostly students (although not entirely). Polls taken beforehand that were trustworthy indicate that Ahmadinejad could've expected between 40-50% of the vote in the election. That means he has a whole lot of supporters out there.
How do you think these supporters would feel if the opposition not only got brought into power on the basis of 'liberal' protesters who didn't represent them, but they were helped and organised through American help? Even if it wasn't state sanctioned, they'll still see it as America behind it.
All this to get a president into power who isn't that much better than the current one in terms of how liberal he is.
Brown and Obama have taken a strictly hands off approach for a reason. It's best at the moment to hope the situation resolves itself without excessive bloodshed. Too much pushing will at best, make a good portion of the country think we're meddling, at worst, it'll push the two entrenched sides into a bloody civil war.
It's currently Iran's problem and it should be up to the Iranian people to resolve it, not for the outside to decide what they think is best for them.
Just make the balloons festive colors and tell them we're throwing a nationwide party for Achmadinejad to celebrate his election. Air drop some party hats and noise makers. I'm sure they won't suspect a thing.
Iran, murky as it is, is a sovereign nation. Revolutions come from within, which is why we're spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The clue is: the iranians will figure it out. The more external influences are brought to bear, the more a subsequent government will be suspect by its people. They have to do it. We have to sit back and watch. Otherwise, it won't stick, and it will devolve into the seventh civil war in the Middle East. Here's the current list, if you're not sure: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Somalia, Eritrea/Ethiopia. A quiet revolution makes much more sense than one that will continue to divide what were once peace-loving peoples.
How is Palestine a civil war? Or are you talking about history? The last civil war in that area took place a couple thousand years ago, which makes sense seeing as how that was the last time the area had sovereign rule against which to start a war.
How is Palestine a civil war? Or are you talking about history? The last civil war in that area took place a couple thousand years ago, which makes sense seeing as how that was the last time the area had sovereign rule against which to start a war.
it seemed pretty civil warrish when Hamas booted out Abbas by using guns.
Get rid of your bile and your testosterone. Leave them alone.
If our interests are the Iranians, let's watch them win this one. If it's US interests, then you're just one more corporate stooge looking for your next earnings statement.
Hedging your bet means getting your hands dirty. Let them win by exposing bias and distortions of the truth within their process. External pressure from the US and/or UK will have a negative reaction. Give them tools; let them do the work. Things are much more valued if you really have to earn them.
And the US tendency to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations is plainly stupid and serves (often) only corporate interests, not those of the US people or those of the sovereign nation. Look at what history tells you. Look at the damage done.
The majority of the country lives in mud huts with goats in their yards and are lucky to have electricity for even part day if at all.
And that's where Ahmadinejad got his 60% of the vote. It might be interesting to enable the 'intellectual elite' of Iran living in the big cities to make their displeasure known to the rest of the world. But as long as they have a semblance of a democratic system, their fundies are going to run the place.
while it is true that "beaming" broadband into Iran is absurd. as others have said, whomever asked the press secretary that question is ignorant of how broadband works and deserves to be laughed at soundly by their peers.:p
that said, your characterization of Iran is way off. Iran is considerably more civilized then what you think it is. Electricity, cell phones, computers, and internet access are all relatively common place in Iran.
The place that you are describing is called Afghanistan.
"Paper ballots?" "Digital voting machines are way too easy to tamper with, and campaigns get really competitive around here." -- Sheriff Jack Carter and Deputy Jo Lupo; Eureka "Here Come The Suns"
I want a website where my ssn and vote are public record!
So... you want a system where your employer can retaliate against you for voting the wrong way?
Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
Could they beam broadband into New York City first? Thanks.
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe to get widespread broadband, the US needs an emerging tyra.. oh wait.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
How is an emerging tyrannosaurus (presumably a fossil just being uncovered) going to help with widespread broadband?
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
I think he meant "Tyra Banks". Her emergence will drive demand for broadband, or something.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
What's the point? NY doesn't have anywhere near as much (potential for) oil as Iran.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Informative)
Current production has nothing to do with it. Future yield, in a world with ever diminishing supplies, is all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Interesting)
I loved Jon Stewart's comments last night. They played a montage of clips of pundits talking about how America is going to be perceived by the world based on what we do with Iran, what's America going to say, how's America going to promote the cause of the protesters, and so on -- who which he responded something to the effect of, "Because, of course, what's going on over there is all about us!"
It's not about us. It's about Iran. It's their election and their struggle for democracy. The biggest complaint held almost universally by Iranians is that we've meddled in their affairs for too damn long -- propping up the Shah, funding Iraq in a war against them, sponsoring MEK, and so forth. The last thing they want is the US government yet again trying to tell them how their society is to be run. That's a perfect recipe for the US to be a foil to the hardliners. Nothing will rally conservative forces in Iran more than the belief that the US is supporting a coup against them yet again.
On the other hand, support from *individual Americans*, that's completely different.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this like support from *individual Mormons* in the Proposition 8 campaign, because I don't think that kind of support will go down well with the Iranians either.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Informative)
It was in reference to criticism that the US government wasn't doing enough to help or encourage the protesters overturn the election and/or government.
Parent
An extention of the Sharks with Lasers Idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly right. The U.S. and Britain started this whole fiasco in 1953 by meddling in Iran's affairs and overthrowing Mohammed Mosaddeq [wikipedia.org] in Operation AJAX [wikipedia.org]. They installed the Shah, a ruthless dictator with a security apparatus as bad or worse than the current Iran Regime, SAVAK [wikipedia.org]. The Iranian people hated the Shah so much they turned to the Islamists in the 1978/1979 Iranian revolution to overthrew him, and replaced the devil they knew with the devil they have now. Mossaddeq nationalized British run oil fields in Iran and the U.S. and Britain over thew him to regain control of the oil. It was one of the early and most vivid proofs that yes in fact the U.S. and Britain will do just about anything to control oil fields including coups and wars. All things considered if Mossaddeq had been left in power Iranian would have been a lot better and happier place.
Anyone with the slightest sense of history realizes the U.S. and Britain need to stay completely out of this because their involvement will just give the current regime a potent propaganda tool to say the protests are a western imperialist instigated counter revolution to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. Its bad enough things like Twitter and Facebook are U.S. based.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
"you read that in a book somewhere"
No, Operation AJAX, is a well documented CIA operation to overthrow the government of Iran in 1953. I included the Wikipedia link which you apparently didn't read. It was initiated by American and British intelligence agencies when Mossadeq nationalized British oil fields in Iran. In a recent speech by Obama, maybe the one in Cairo, he for the first time officially acknowledged that the U.S. overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. The "loyal factions of the Iranian Military" you cite were lead by General Fazlollah Zahedi who was working with/for the CIA who were running the coup.
"were the Q'oran thumping whackjobs who opposed or replaced him any better"
I never said or implied any such thing. The Islamists who overthrew the Shah are just as bad if not worse. Only difference is one is pro western and the other is Islamic so the repression has a different flavor. The Basij and Revolutionary Guards are just as bad if not worse than SAVAK. The one redeeming quality of the Islamic revolution, in the eyes of Iranian nationalists, is they aren't stooges of the American government, the Shah was. A lot of Iranians still hate America for putting the Shah in power.
You should read the link I put in my original article on Mohammed Mosaddeq [wikipedia.org]. He was a secular Socialist, not an Islamist, moderate, very popular, and I'm sure women would have faired as well or better under his government than the Shah. The fatal mistake he made is he screwed British oil companies, by taking back control of Iran's oil fields, and you didn't screw with British and American oil companies in the 1950's.
The point I was making which was apparently completely lost on you is both the Shah, and the current Islamic regime are terrible. The best chance Iran had for a good government was Mossadeq. He probably wasn't perfect but the U.S. and Britian overthrew him, deprived Iran of a chance at a moderate regime and plunged Iran in to 56 years of brutal authoritarian rule which continues today, half under the Shah and half under the current Islamic Regime.
The U.S. did the same thing all over the world throughout the 20tj century and is still doing it today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the U.S. consistently abused its power to install one repressive dictator after another as long at they were:
A. pro business and let U.S. companies profitably exploit their resources whether they be oil or bananas (the U.S. installing dictators in Central America to protect the plantations of United Fruit is where the term Banana Republic comes from.
B. anti worker and labor union because places like United Fruit wanted their labor as cheap and exploitable as possible, which meant crushing unions
C. staunchly anti Soviet Union and anti Communist
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference?
Because in the history of revolting THAT IS WHAT HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED, there has never been a revolt in the world where outside backers haven't cast there lot with one or another faction like that. So any thought of Iran revolting and America not being involved, because of good feelings and such, is just hopeful fantasy. Iran suffering a revolt and America is tacitly condemning the Iranian crackdown because the revolt is not likely to succeed and Obama has already made moves to reconcile with the ruling Islamic government. The only reason to even lodge a complaint against Iran was to put pressure on them, to make them uncomfortable, but unless the govt. shows signs of toppling America will not move in Iran. If America does move we won't even know what side America will back, they could just as easily support the ailing regime in exchange for their unending debt and gratitude...
A more important question is why we would "beam broadband" (no doubt many slashdotters recoiled at this phrase, but we get the gist of it I suppose) to the opposition forces. Is there any evidence that broadband will help these people out against the government? They could just as easily use word of mouth and secret meetings, no doubt they already do. Unless this whole revolt started on the back of websites and mass emailings...
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT is why you care about Iran in the first place. Tajikistan Turkmenistan Azerbijian and Uzbekistan (check your map all close neighbors of Iran) haven't had free elections in god knows how long. Look up Turkmenbashy! We don't care about these countries beating and torturing opposition supporters. These countries play ball, they are part of the great Caspian pipeline and the same police forces that torture electorates, torture terrorists/anarchists/democrats/republicans/monarchists who try and blow up the pipeline. The only reason human rights are brought up in the news/politics is because the West (sometimes the East) wants to gain something. Go look up the news for Tamil Tigers and War Crimes trials, Europe and the US want the Sri Lankan govt. to be punished, whilst China Russia and India don't: it certainly isn't because of a disagreement about who are the victims. Giving a shit about Human Rights abuses in Iran is hypocritical and foolish. In fact, giving a shit about human rights abuses at all is hypocritical and foolish...
So please stop reading your newspapers/blogs/slashdotinternationalnews and answering for dribble like "How can we beam happy sunshine into Iran". Have some self-respect.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think offering national wifi would be too much of a problem as far as our image is concerned. We could bill it as being humanitarian, e.g. to help the red cross volunteers that are undoubtably already there.
The point is moot however. Satellite wifi is only 1 way...Hand held devices don't have the transmission power to hit an orbital target. The only way we could set up some kind of wireless broadband would be with big honkin towers, serving local nodes, etc, and that ain't happening. And if we sent basically a 1-way "information" broadcast, we would (rightly) be accused of interference.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Informative)
Moral of the story: those we help will not always repay us with kindness.
Especially when the reason we helped them had absolutely zilch to do with altruism or genuine interest in their welfare or in the principles of democracy or anything high-minded, and instead had everything to do with our own self interest with complete disregard for how things turned out for them provided we got what we wanted.
We didn't really 'help' them. We 'used' them as pawns in our game of chess with the USSR. We didn't give a shit about what happened to them.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
We replaced the Communists with gangs of illiterate Mujahadin and then Taliban warlords who were even more brutal than the Communists, who cut the country up into feudal feifs, destroyed everything and built nothing, who drove out Doctors Without Borders (after 30 years), and whose idea of education was having boys (not girls) read the Koran which they then interpret to mean "Anything we want it to mean." They were allied with lunatics like Osama bin Ladin who used all our training against the Soviets to attack us, and with the Pakistani islamists.
Our support for the Mujahadeen against the Soviets was in our interest only in the mind of an unrepentant lunatic cold warrior.
If the Russians would help us today in Afghanistan, we would be overjoyed (because it would mean fewer dead Americans).
If we had left them alone, Afghanistan would have been in more competent hands, with a secular or non-sectarian society, with more freedom than they have today, and with less of a threat to the U.S. than they are today.
Parent
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
NCC-1701 version (Score:3, Funny)
We would have to ask Scotty if we had enough power to beam broadband.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Captain, ma dongle canna tak much more o' this!
They don't have the hardware on their end... (Score:5, Informative)
Getting a signal TO them is easy. You just have to set up a source with sufficient power. Satellite, ground, shortwave, whatever. I think it would be feasible (I'm not radio guru) to beam them FM from space or Iraq. Basiclly you'd be breaking all the transmit power limits to further your cause.
The problem with networking is they don't have any devices powerful enough to beam the return signal BACK to us. Sure, we can broadcast them a packet 1000 miles away, but their hardware only has the power to return it 1 mile back... Yeah, you can tweak the sensitivity of your receiving equip, but not enough for this. And the idea of cells is that you are counting on a signal only reaching a certain distance, so you can reuse that frequency in another location. Even if they all put 100,000 watt amplifiers on their wifi cards, on our end it's just jumbled garbage.
By the time we got any hardware to them to let them communicate with us, this revolution will be over... R&D, Procurement, Distribution...
Eh sonny? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, if the plan is to provide large quantities of Officially Discouraged Hardware to all and sundry, we might as well just mix rifles in with the phones and call it a day.
Re:Eh sonny? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does whoever asked that question know absolutely nothing about how "beaming" works?
Yep. They also know nothing about routers, packets, fiber or anything that would explain how those videos get from YouTube to their iphones. My wife tells me that most people are living in a world where all sorts of neat stuff happens magically, and when it stops happening the only real solution is to call some company (or, if they're lucky, a sufficiently tech-savvy friend) that can make that magic start working again.
This is fairly disturbing.
Parent
Re:Eh sonny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Satellite Internet exists (Score:5, Informative)
Google it (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure the US Army already has it's own satellite ISP that works in Iraq, which means it also works in Iran, they'd just have to be so generous to let the Iranis use it, they don't really need special equipment for this, they can buy satellite capable phones in Iran, they just need the access to the US army networks, or commercial networks. Just give them some access to satellite providers, then they can set up their own networks on site if they're the least bit organized, otherwise it's no use anyway.
Wifi from Irak isn't really possible, It would work around the borders, but that's all, Iran is a pretty big country, it's meaningless, satellite is the only option, either that or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers [wikipedia.org] .
Don't do anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe people will change their mind or maybe they won't, either way you'll be covered.
Re:Don't do anything (Score:5, Insightful)
There are too many people in the U.S. and UK who are WAY too into meddling in this fight. This is something the Iranians have to do or not do on their own. Nothing good can come of western meddling in this case. It will only give the Ahmadinejad regime an excuse to crack down on the dissenters as western-sponsored traitors. Even in the best case scenarios, the people we help will likely only resent us for it in the end (since it will taint their movement with the possibility that it was just some CIA sponsored coup, instead of a legitimate grass roots movement).
The best thing the west can do right now is to stay out of it and stfu.
Parent
Re:Don't do anything (Score:5, Insightful)
>> that's entirely consistent with what should be American values.
Are you being arrogant or just ignorant in presuming that American values are somehow intrinsically better than anyone elses?
Parent
DVB-S2/RCS or BGAN (Score:5, Informative)
With DVB-S2/RCS you have a bidirectional satellite system that requires a 1.2 meter dish antenna and a satellite terminal composed of an indoor unit (about the size of a bulky cable-modem) and an outdoor unit (transmitter and receiver horn mounted on the focus point of the satellite dish. This costs around US$1000 dollars and it takes about 30min to install (if you are an experienced installer).
With BGAN you have a very portable terminal (about the size of a netbook) that only requires you to point it in the general vicinity of the satellite location in the horizon.
Both systems use GEO (geostationary) satellites, which means that they have a fixed location in the horizon. They are actually located over the equator (0Â latitude) and they orbit the earth in 24h cycles, thus appearing to be stationary.
With DVB-S2/RCS you can have a 50Mbit/s in the downlink, although most services provide less than 10Mbit/s. The usually upload speed is 1Mbit/s. This speeds are shared between all terminals within a beam (similar to Internet over cable, where you share your Internet within a residential area of about 1000 persons).
With BGAN you only have 492Kbit/s in both the downlink and uplink. On the other hand, it is designed for mobility.
Re:DVB-S2/RCS or BGAN (Score:4, Insightful)
The downside of all of these systems (besides getting the hardware into the country) is that the airtime is fairly expensive. BGAN runs you about $3.50/Megabyte, and it's cheap for satellite data.
Parent
The Tor project is already doing this (Score:5, Informative)
The Tor project has taken it upon themselves to help out the resistance in Iran. They have instructions to setup Iran only Tor bridges to provide secure/anonymous internet access to and from Iran.
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/measuring-tor-and-iran
Too bad the press isn't paying attention to the (very successful) efforts by the Tor project in helping out the people of Iran get communications in and out of Iran. No need for the White House to do anything, the good folks and volunteers at Tor are taking care of it in a much more practical way.
Also, whoever wrote this article/said that comment has no idea about physics and technology. Some of the comments here talking about how unbelievably implausible "beaming broadband" into Iran is are very funny.
You can't just throw internet into a country.... not in any practical way anyways, especially from a satellite without proper ground equipment.
Be not afraid of Internet; (Score:5, Funny)
Some are born with Internet, some pay a lot for Internet, and others have Internet thrust upon them.
Internet, no. But maybe more satellite TV. (Score:5, Interesting)
The US is currently sending out satellite TV news in Persian 24 hours a day. [ibb.gov] It's on Telstar 12; the eastern edge of coverage is near the Iran-Pakistan border, and the whole EU is covered. Someone please take a look and see what they're sending. The IBB doesn't seem to have the transponder number, symbol rate, or frequency on their site, which is lame.
Any historians in the audience? (Score:4, Funny)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Could we beam broadband internet into Iran? Yes. Could they send anything back? No.
However, everyone assumes that we 'should' be doing this and helping the revolution so they can experience 'freedom'.
For one thing, this isn't a popular uprising. It's taking place in a liberal city and is mostly students (although not entirely). Polls taken beforehand that were trustworthy indicate that Ahmadinejad could've expected between 40-50% of the vote in the election. That means he has a whole lot of supporters out there.
How do you think these supporters would feel if the opposition not only got brought into power on the basis of 'liberal' protesters who didn't represent them, but they were helped and organised through American help? Even if it wasn't state sanctioned, they'll still see it as America behind it.
All this to get a president into power who isn't that much better than the current one in terms of how liberal he is.
Brown and Obama have taken a strictly hands off approach for a reason. It's best at the moment to hope the situation resolves itself without excessive bloodshed. Too much pushing will at best, make a good portion of the country think we're meddling, at worst, it'll push the two entrenched sides into a bloody civil war.
It's currently Iran's problem and it should be up to the Iranian people to resolve it, not for the outside to decide what they think is best for them.
Re:Balloons? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran, murky as it is, is a sovereign nation. Revolutions come from within, which is why we're spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The clue is: the iranians will figure it out. The more external influences are brought to bear, the more a subsequent government will be suspect by its people. They have to do it. We have to sit back and watch. Otherwise, it won't stick, and it will devolve into the seventh civil war in the Middle East. Here's the current list, if you're not sure: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Somalia, Eritrea/Ethiopia. A quiet revolution makes much more sense than one that will continue to divide what were once peace-loving peoples.
Parent
Re:The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it o (Score:4, Informative)
How is Palestine a civil war? Or are you talking about history? The last civil war in that area took place a couple thousand years ago, which makes sense seeing as how that was the last time the area had sovereign rule against which to start a war.
Parent
Re:The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it o (Score:5, Informative)
How is Palestine a civil war? Or are you talking about history? The last civil war in that area took place a couple thousand years ago, which makes sense seeing as how that was the last time the area had sovereign rule against which to start a war.
it seemed pretty civil warrish when Hamas booted out Abbas by using guns.
Parent
Re:The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it o (Score:4, Insightful)
Sit down.
Get rid of your bile and your testosterone. Leave them alone.
If our interests are the Iranians, let's watch them win this one. If it's US interests, then you're just one more corporate stooge looking for your next earnings statement.
Hedging your bet means getting your hands dirty. Let them win by exposing bias and distortions of the truth within their process. External pressure from the US and/or UK will have a negative reaction. Give them tools; let them do the work. Things are much more valued if you really have to earn them.
And the US tendency to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations is plainly stupid and serves (often) only corporate interests, not those of the US people or those of the sovereign nation. Look at what history tells you. Look at the damage done.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Would Muslims want to use ham radio?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.wildblue.com/aboutWildblue/how_it_works_demo.jsp [wildblue.com]
WildBlue's two satellites, located 22,500 miles above the Earth's equator in geostationary orbit
So no, that isn't LEO.
Re:Satellite tech. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Soup cans and string (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of the country lives in mud huts with goats in their yards and are lucky to have electricity for even part day if at all.
And that's where Ahmadinejad got his 60% of the vote. It might be interesting to enable the 'intellectual elite' of Iran living in the big cities to make their displeasure known to the rest of the world. But as long as they have a semblance of a democratic system, their fundies are going to run the place.
Parent
Re:Soup cans and string (Score:5, Interesting)
while it is true that "beaming" broadband into Iran is absurd. as others have said, whomever asked the press secretary that question is ignorant of how broadband works and deserves to be laughed at soundly by their peers. :p
that said, your characterization of Iran is way off. Iran is considerably more civilized then what you think it is. Electricity, cell phones, computers, and internet access are all relatively common place in Iran.
The place that you are describing is called Afghanistan.
Parent
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:5, Informative)
You might need a lesson in history [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:4, Insightful)
"Paper ballots?"
"Digital voting machines are way too easy to tamper with, and campaigns get really competitive around here."
-- Sheriff Jack Carter and Deputy Jo Lupo; Eureka "Here Come The Suns"
I want a website where my ssn and vote are public record!
So... you want a system where your employer can retaliate against you for voting the wrong way?
Parent