Could We Beam Broadband Internet Into Iran? 541
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?"
Balloons? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ummm (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you really telling me you don't see a good reason to provide an unfiltered communication capability to Iran given its current situation? It wouldn't have to a permanent setup.
On the other hand, then they could legitimately blame us for interference...
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.
Re:Google it (Score:3, Interesting)
When i was deployed to Iraq my platoon was in a tiny coalition camp, no internet, phones, mail, tv, pay, or anything. So we found a local guy in the city that sold us a civilian satelite dish. We paid him in cash each month and he took it to bagdad and paid somebody for the service. We convoyed to the nearest FOB with payservices to get the cash (and the mail, ANCD fills, candy, taco bell, whatever).
I think we had 12 unique IPs and the bandwidth was decent. The only problems we had was people leaving their torrents on all day! You'd have to practically cordon and search the area to find the offending laptop.
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:3, Interesting)
This has already caught [whyweprotest.net] the [whyweprotest.net] attention [whyweprotest.net] of [whyweprotest.net] Anonymous [whyweprotest.net].
Perhaps Anonymous will respond [youtube.com].
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:2, Interesting)
These companies sold network equipment.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
But we still don't sell guns to Iran.
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.
Re:Satellite Internet exists (Score:3, Interesting)
Unhelpful Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Eh sonny? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is fairly disturbing.
It is and it isn't. People can only learn so much about the world around them without focused study. I think science has just passed the point where laymen can be expected to absorb all of it. When the most complicated application of science was sailing ships and gunpowder, you could probably expect most people could figure out how they worked. As it stands today there's just too much. I know a lot about a lot; but I still don't know how to go about building a house or a car; things I use everyday. I'm gradually learning as things break; but if the magic men weren't so expensive I'd just call them to remagic it.
I think that's fair, I think that's one of the benefits of living in organized society. You don't have to know everything, so you can specialize in the obscure fields that bring you joy; without fear of coming up short on the more boring sciences.
I've got a crazy idea (Score:1, Interesting)
Just this once, let's not mess with the internal affairs of another country.
Re:Eh sonny? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that this is both beneficial and detrimental. I think some people too quickly resign themselves to always perceiving everything as "magic". It also becomes more difficult to do the interdisciplinary work that was easier to do when the fields weren't as specialized.
Re:Soup cans and string (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It is also where more than 100% of the people voted [csmonitor.com] (you'll have to scroll down on that link, I don't know why I can't get a static link directly to that article), and somehow Ahmadinejad got a lot of new support since the previous election. Seems a bit unlikely, don't you think? If Ahmadinejad does have such huge support, why does he have to photoshop his crowds [dailykos.com]?
The people in the countryside are religious, but so are the people in the city, and so are the reformists. In fact, the entire basis for this democratic push is based on Islamic religious principles [wsj.com]. Notice also that Mousavi is not trying to force himself to become president, he is merely asking for fair elections. This must be something even people in mud huts must want, otherwise they wouldn't have voted. There was a poll taken before the election that confirms this point: nearly 4 out of 5 said they wanted to elect even the supreme leader [washingtonpost.com].
While none of us can go to Iran and ask people what they think, and while it is possible that Ahmadinejad won the election and might possibly even win a revote, it is hard to find a reason to think that most Iranians don't support Mousavi's ideas of fair, honest elections. Who votes and then doesn't want their vote counted?
I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't get the whole Iran thing at all.
What do I know:
Mousavi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi [wikipedia.org] ) is not a reformer. He was prime minister during some of the worst days of the revolution. He held high offices and oversaw the imprisonment of tens thousands of peaceful opposition figures (or just ordinary people caught drinking wine for example). Many of whom were tortured and/or killed. For some insight into those horrible times you can check out Persepolis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics) [wikipedia.org] ) movie or comic.
Mousavi seems to be a member of a so called "reformist alliance". Former president Khatami also belongs to the same group. He was elected, because many people seemed to hope they could bring some change using the elections. Khatami himself said that he is not a reformer. But still tried to ease up on the restrictions governing the daily lives of the Iranians. It didn't help. Other "more hardcore" elements of the government that are not controlled by the president and the parliament cracked down and reversed changes. As a result the public grew weary of the so called "reformist alliance" that could not (or didn't want to) actually reform anything.
The whole thing looks like trouble within the supposedly ruling class of clerics. Why do so many people protest on the streets? Most likely it wouldn't make a difference if Mousavi was elected. Also AFAIK the Pasdaran actually control Iran. A very corrupt military organization ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution [wikipedia.org] ).
Can anyone shed some light on this whole thing? Could it not be that Ahmadinejad actually got 60% of the popular vote? After all he is a populist. Maybe he is popular after all. Why would the rulers of Iran risk a popular uprising for nothing. Khatami couldn't do anything at all. He didn't have much actual power. Same with Ahmadinejad. He is just a puppet. Mousavi would also just be a puppet.
Re:Ummm (Score:3, Interesting)
"Seriously, there is a big risk here of blindly hopping into bed with the enemy of our enemy and catching something nasty."
I don't know. It worked so well when we aided the Taliban to fight the Soviets.
a better question... (Score:0, Interesting)
Should we "beam" broadband internet into Iran? I dont know if interfering with other governments is a good idea. A lot of people seem to be for interfering with a regime until we actually go to war with them at which point those same people scorn and point blame at others for doing exactly what they wanted.
I'm not trying to troll, I'm bringing up a valid point.
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:2, Interesting)
Iran has meddled too (Score:2, Interesting)
Well Iran has also "meddled" in US affairs and their regional neighbors as well.
After the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in late 1990's- their embassy was overrun and staff murdered. Iran had concerns that Taliban would target Iran in their jihad. After 9/11 foresaw an opportunity to defeat the Taliban without blooding their hands. Iran provided the US with intelligence to help defeat the Taliban in northern Afghanistan with assistance with the Northern Alliance (who had good ties with Iranian Government).
When the tea leaves showed that US was planning to invade Iraq, Iran was offering to provided the US with intelligence for the upcoming battles. Their angle was that after the Saddam regime was defeated Iran would have a solution. Exiled Iraqi politicians in Iran who were sympathetic to Iranian politics would be instilled as the new government. US declined this generous offer.
Iran now provides arms and training to opposition forces in Iraq
Re:The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it o (Score:2, Interesting)
How did your revolution against the British turn out on your own? Oh wait - it didn't. The French [wikipedia.org] helped - as did the Dutch & Spanish.
But go on it seems to be the prevailing thought process on Slashdot today so you'll get your +5 insightful. Iraq & Afghanistan btw have different problems as to why they are currently expensive (probably has a lot to do with the horrible mismanagement & wide-spread corruption with the private contractors Bush liked so much).
BTW the CIA promised help thus encouraging the Hungary Revolution in 1956 against the Soviets. Guess how well that turned out for them without any external help. What do you realistically expect to happen here? If we leave things alone, the Iranians potentially could get slaughtered (however, I'm not going to presume to understand all the intricacies of the political system - it's extremely complex with lots of factors like the guardian council, which elects the Ayatollah actually supporting a recount AFAIK). Simply saying it's in our best interest to stay out of it is extremely stupid - it's hedging the bet that everything will remain status quo. If there is a successful overthrow, they probably won't appreciate not getting help from the States while they were dying - they might not care, they might understand, they might not.
As usual "It Depends" (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory, WIMAX can give you usable (if somewhat slow) speeds out to 50km [wikipedia.org] - which might get some villages close to Iran's borders but won't help Tehran at all.
Anyone who has the right sort of CPE, the right knowledge, and proper credentials can use a dish subscriber network to get as much as 2mbps down and 1mbps up. The latency blows, but it's not like the service is meant for playing the latest FPS. The big downside is the customer equipment - satellite dishes are thick on the ground in most areas of the middle east, but I'd be a little surprised if enough of them are the right sort of dish to matter. If they are, it may not matter - Iran's been taking various measures [motherjones.com] to reduce citizen's access to satellites [rferl.org]
Re:Ummm (Score:3, Interesting)
Remind me again of how favorable an impression of the French the average American has? Not like this is anything new. Anyone heard of the Quasi-War [wikipedia.org], which we fought with France in the late 1700s?
Furthermore, it's a dumb analogy. Almost all of the British sympathizers left the US after the revolution. Are we expecting conservative Iranians to leave the country? Where to?
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:3, Interesting)
That is the kind of thing that DID go on, and that is why votes are anonymous now. The issue is: if you want to waive your own privacy, go ahead. Post your vote online. But don't try to force that on anybody else.